Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

PROSECUTION AND SENTENCE, HARESCOMBE.

Sir FRANK NELSON: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the sentence of a fine of £15 or, alternatively, 14 days' imprisonment passed on Joshua Townsend, of Harescombe, Gloucestershire, at the Gloucester County Petty Sessions, on 15th December last, for having failed to comply with a magistrate's order for the abatement of a nuisance, namely, the alleged overcrowding of his cottage by reason of his inability to find alternative accommodation; if he is aware that Joshua Townsend is an ex-Service man with a wife and six children, and has made all possible efforts to find accommodation suitable to the size of his family and near his work and within the scope of his wages? and will he make inquiries with a view to a mitigation of this sentence?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): My attention has been called to this case. I understand that Townsend has found and has removed to suitable premises. Further inquiry will be necessary before I can consider whether I ought to advise any remission of a penalty inflicted earlier. I may, perhaps, say that the proceedings were taken, not by the police, but by the sanitary inspector.

Sir F. NELSON: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the courtesy of his reply, am I to understand that he will still make inquiries as to whether or not this sentence will be mitigated?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, that is exactly what I say in my reply. I thought I ought to let my hon. Friend know that the man has removed to suitable premises.

AGRICULTURAL PARISHES.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 37.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses under the 1924 Act built in agricultural parishes in each month since the Act came into operation?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): As the answer involves a tabular statement I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following Statement shows the number of Houses completed in Agricultural Parishes in England and Wales each month under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.

Month.
Year.



1924.
1925.
1926.
1927.
1928.


January
—
18
82
270
203


February
—
50
126
324
222


March
—
33
174
427
105


April
—
54
153
414
82


May
—
50
169
461
146


June
—
60
213
314
134


July
—
40
191
413
196


August
—
42
267
610
211


September
—
39
275
2,415
278


October
—
132
281
344
221


November
15
102
261
196
189


December
20
98
347
185
126

SUBSIDISED HOUSES (TENANTS).

Mr. CLUSE: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will, if necessary, introduce legislation empowering or requiring borough councils in London, and local authorities generally, to determine tenancies in subsidised houses where the tenants are clearly not of the genuine working-class type contemplated in the Acts?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Local authorities already have full discretion as to the tenancies of houses erected by themselves.

CADOGAN SYNDICATE, CHELSEA.

Mr. BROMLEY: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has recently received
any communication from certain insurance companies interested in the property of the Cadogan syndicate in Chelsea as to the possible improvement of its sanitary condition, the use of part of it for children's playground, and the treatment of Feltham Mews, etc., for slum clearance purposes; and what steps he proposes to take?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE.

Mr. BROMLEY: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a certain tenant in Med way Street, "Westminster, on the estate of the Doxford Estates Company, whose house being rendered unsafe by neighbouring building operations was practically uninhabitable; whether he is aware that this tenant has now been compensated for removal, all her expenses reimbursed, and a written guarantee given that she will be treated in all respects as if she were in a rent-restricted house: and whether he will introduce legislation to secure to tenants so situated as a matter of right the advantages given by the landlord in this particular case after friendly negotiations and as an act of grace?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information with regard to this case. I cannot undertake to introduce general legislation on the lines suggested.

Mr. BROMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is in sympathy with the text of the question?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question seems to be a testimonial to a very generous landlord.

Mr. BROMLEY: That is not much of an answer.

BECONTREE ESTATE.

Mr. KELLY: 49.
asked the Minister of Health the number of London County Council houses at Becontree standing empty in January, 1926, July, 1928, and at the present time?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the numbers of unoccupied houses on the Becontree Estate at the dates in question were 398, 160 and 100 respectively.

Mr. KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to why these houses should be vacant at this time, when the housing problem is so serious in that part of London?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is fairly obvious. It is also obvious that the number of empty houses has rapidly come down.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the London County Council that, if they find any difficulty in getting tenants for their houses, they will allow people from Greater London to apply for them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They are not finding so much difficulty as they were, as the numbers are coming down so rapidly.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN ACT.

Mr. GERALD HURST: 5.
asked the Home Secretary whether, before the dissolution, he will seek the opinions of courts which exercise jurisdiction under the Adoption of Children Act, 1926, as to the existence of any grounds for amending either this statute or the present procedure there under, and, in particular, as to the desirability of enabling birth certificates to be issued which do not disclose to an adopted person the fact of his adoption in infancy?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Courts have already been consulted on this subject and some valuable information based on their replies was given in the recently published Report on the work of the Children's Branch of the Home Office, of which I will send my hon. Friend a copy. The Courts reported that, generally speaking, the Act is working well, though some proposals for amendment were made. Amending legislation may eventually be required, but longer experience is desirable before it is contemplated.

LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE MANAGEMENT).

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 7.
asked the Home Secretary the original gravity of the beer brewed by the State management and sold in their districts as winter ale?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As I understand that it is not the practice of brewers to make such information public, and as I look to the State Management Council to conduct the undertaking in accordance with sound business principles, I would rather be excused from answering my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

POISONS AND PHARMACY ACTS.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 8.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Committee on the Poisons and Pharmacy Acts has concluded its sittings; and, if so, when the Report is likely to be published?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Committee has not yet concluded its sittings and no indication can be given as to the probable date of submission of its Report.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS ACT.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 9.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the number of prosecutions under the Protection of Animals Act, 1914, for cruelty in connection with prolonged chaining of dogs, and the number of convictions?

sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret that I am unable to find any such information, but perhaps any hon. Friend would help me with references.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that great cruelty is often caused by this practice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech"!]

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot find any cases. My hon. Friend asked me to give the number of prosecutions. I cannot find any up to the present. If he can give me a clue as to any which have taken place, I may be able to obtain some information. At present, I can find none.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: I will do my best to help the right hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRESSED AREAS.

IRON-STONE MINERS, CLEVELAND.

Sir PARK GOFF: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Education if any of the Lord Mayor's relief fund has
been, or will be, allocated to the Cleveland iron-stone miners, who have been out of work for seven years and are affiliated with the Miners' Federation of Great Britain?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I understand that the question of making a grant from the Lord Mayor's Fund to the Cleveland district will be decided at an early date.

Sir P. GOFF: Is the Noble Lord aware that, of 19 ironstone mines in Cleveland, only five are working to-day, and they are working on short time?

Lord E. PERCY: Yes, Sir.

Sir P. GOFF: If the local fund which has been raised in that district, is sent to the Lord Mayor's Fund, will the Lord Mayor add to it as has been done in other cases?

Lord E. PERCY: That is the point which I answered. That question, I understand, is to be decided at an early date.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the Noble Lord aware that a large number of ironstone miners in other districts are out of work?

RELIEF ORGANISATIONS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can make any statement as to the progress of the organisations responsible for the relief of distress in the mining areas?

Lord E. PERCY: I must apologise for the length of this answer. Divisional committees have been formed to control the operations of the Lord Mayor's Fund in the following coalfields: South Wales, Durham and Northumberland, Lancashire, Cumberland, West Riding, Somerset and Gloucestershire, including the Forest of Dean, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Under the divisional committees local committees have been, or are now being, constituted as required on a basis fully representative of all interests, including the voluntary agencies, for the purpose of obtaining information, preventing overlapping, and securing fair and efficient distribution. The intention is to incorporate as far as possible any existing distress committees into the local committees of the
Lord Mayor's Fund, and to restrict the areas covered by those committees so as to ensure that their members can come into personal touch with those who will benefit from the fund. In areas where the density of distress is not such as to justify the creation of a local committee it is proposed that the divisional committees should enlist the aid of the local education and public health authorities concerned. As regards the central organisation in London, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Lord Mayor's speech at the Mansion House on the 16th of this month, of which, I am sending him a copy.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is this list of committees complete, or is there a chance of any additions being made to it? In particular, is there a chance that North Stafford, where distress is extremely great in the coalfields, will have its own committee?

Lord E. PERCY: Yes. The list does not pretend to be exhaustive. I gather that the arrangements to be made in the remaining areas will be considered by the committee of the fund on Friday.

LORD MAYOR'S FUND.

Viscount SANDON: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, as an alternative to the lesser contributions to the Lord Mayor's fund in cash and kind being ignored, printed postcards of thanks can be sent to all donors?

Lord E. PERCY: I am informed that all cash contributions to the fund are acknowledged, but I will convey my noble Friend's suggestion to the Lord Mayor.

Viscount SANDON: I can give the right hon. Gentleman a case where that is not so.

SCOTLAND.

Captain FANSHAWE: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what decisions have been arrived at with regard to the distribution in Scotland of the fund made available for the relief of the miners; if any relief is being given outside of the necessitous mining areas and, if so, to whom; and, approximately, what proportion of the fund has now been distributed?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): The Distress in Mining Areas (Scotland) Fund is being administered by a Central Advisory Committee set up at a Conference held in Edinburgh on the 22nd December. At a meeting of the Central Advisory Committee held last week, various decisions were arrived at in regard to the policy to be followed in the administration of the Fund, and it is hoped to issue a Circular to Local Authorities this week intimating those decisions. In order to secure uniformity of administration as between the different districts, the Committee have fixed a scale of household income to be followed by Local Committees in considering applications for assistance, a discretion being allowed to Local Committees to exceed this scale in exceptional circumstances. Assistance from the Fund may be given either by way of food (which may include feeding of children at school) or clothing, by assisting suitable persons to move to other areas where employment has been found, or by assisting emigration. As regards the second part of the question, the Central Advisory Committee have decided to draw up a list of parishes which, for the purposes of the Fund, may reasonably be regarded as "mining areas." Within those parishes assistance from the Fund will not be limited to miners, and persons in distress in other industries will be entitled to make application for assistance. Outside those parishes, only the claims of mineworkers will be entertained. As regards the last part of the question, the Central Advisory Committee have distributed £20,000 to Local Authorities, representing about one-ninth of the present total of the Fund.

Captain FANSHAWE: Can my hon. and gallant Friend assure me that the same considerations will be given to distressed miners who live outside the scheduled parishes as is given to them if they reside within?

Major ELLIOT: Yes, Sir.

Mr. DENNISON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman have regard to the distress which is prevailing among other workpeople who are not included in what may be described as a mining area?

Major ELLIOT: It is not possible for us to take account of that under the terms for the collection of the Fund.

Mr. DENNISON: But in view of the fact that the Government are now making a contribution from the taxpayers' money, ought not this Fund to apply to all cases of distress, and not be specifically earmarked for individuals?

Major ELLIOT: It would take a long time to go into all the reasons for the decisions which have been come to. Those decisions were come to by the Advisory Committee, and workers in certain other industries, as well as the miners, were represented on that Committee.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the amount of relief expended, £20,000, not very low having regard to the amount of distress in Scotland?

Major ELLIOT: That was merely the first interim distribution. The remaining distributions will take place as rapidly as the machinery which is set up can deal with applications.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: When the hon. and gallant Member speaks of representatives of other industries being on the Advisory Committee, does that mean inside the area? Were representatives from distressed shipyard areas like Leith or the Clyde also consulted with regard to the need in those areas?

Major ELLIOT: The particular industry which I had in mind was that of the steel-workers. The steel-workers are concerned with industries in various parts of the country.

Mr. BROWN: Was any consideration given to the industry most distressed of the whole lot, shipbuilding?

Mr. DENNISON: Will steel workers not within mining areas who are suffering from unemployment receive relief from this fund?

Major ELLIOT: According to the decision of the Central Advisory Committee, on which, as I say, the steel-workers were represented, it will not be possible to relieve workers in other industries residing outside the scheduled mining areas.

Mr. KELLY: Arising out of that portion of the reply dealing with the transference
to other districts, is it meant that the cost of transferring people under the Ministry of Labour transfer Scheme will come out of this Fund?

Major ELLIOT: Oh, no. This fund, as it has been clearly explained by the Secretary of State, is not to serve as a replacement either of local relief or central relief, but it is to serve in a supplementary capacity to statutory assistance.

Mr. BROWN: Has shipbuilding been considered, in view of the fact that out of 25,000 insured workers, at least 5,090 are out of work at the present moment?

Major ELLIOT: As the hon. Member knows, the question of shipbuilding did not arise either in the Debates in the House or in the appeal for funds which were made.

Mr. BROWN: Is the hon. and gallant Member not aware that I put a question to the Prime Minister myself?

Mr. STEWART: What is the scale of relief which has been decided upon? The hon. and gallant Member mentioned the scale, but he did not give any indication as to what it was.

Major ELLIOT: The scale of relief, along with other relevant facts, will be found in the circular which will be issued this week to the various bodies concerned.

Mr. W. THORNE: Are the Government going to give pound for pound in Scotland?

Major ELLIOT: At the present time the Government are contributing to Scotland its due proportion of 11/80ths of all money contributed by the Government towards any fund in the United Kingdom, that is 11/80ths of Government subscriptions towards the Lord Mayor's Fund.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

UNCERTIFICATED TEACHERS.

Mr. WILLIAM HIRST: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Education if his attention has been drawn to the advertisements in the official journal of the Association of Education Committees, Education, for 11th January, from the Bridlington and Ipswich
authorities for uncertificated assistant mistresses with salaries under Scale 2; and if his Department is prepared to recognise so low a standard of teaching for authorities under its control?

Lord E. PERCY: I have seen the advertisements referred to. The employment of uncertificated teachers is allowed by the Code, and it would not be practicable to prohibit their employment.

MILK SUPPLIES.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the offer to supply one-third of a pint of milk in a special bottle for one penny to schools within the Metropolitan area; and whether this proposal has received his support?

Lord E. PERCY: I have not heard of the particular proposal to which the hon. Member refers. Any arrangement for the supply of milk to children attending public elementary schools is primarily a matter for the local education authority concerned.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Sir LESLIE SCOTT: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Report of the Mental Deficiency Committee, which on the 9th. July last he informed the House he hoped would be available before the end of the year, has been signed; and when it will be published?

Lord E. PERCY: The Report has just been presented. I hope to publish it as soon as practicable, but I understand it is a very long document, and I should not like to give an undertaking to publish until I have had an opportunity of considering it.

Sir L. SCOTT: May we know whether "as soon as possible" means well on this side of Easter, because there are important conferences to be held in April which will be attended by many people anxious to know about this matter?

Lord E. PERCY: I will certainly do my best. It is a very long document.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the Noble Lord give an undertaking that no proposals made by the Committee will be carried into effect, until the Report has been published?

Lord E. PERCY: Certainly no proposals will be carried into effect until the direct recommendations have been published.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

ENLARGED TONSILS.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Education, whether, in view of conflicting medical testimony on the advantage or necessity for the extraction of enlarged tonsils, he will recommend local education authorities to bring to the notice of their medical officers the fact that there is an alternative treatment and advise them not to prosecute parents who desire to follow such treatment rather than have recourse to the operation?

Lord E. PERCY: I do not think the course suggested by the hon. Member is necessary. The medical officers of local education authorities are well aware that there are various alternative methods of treatment for enlarged tonsils, of which operative treatment is one, and operative treatment would only be recommended by them when other methods of treatment had been tried and failed. The position of the Board is indicated in paragraph 117 of the Report of their chief medical officer for 1921, which was repeated in paragraph 63 of his Report for 1923. I would also draw the hon. Member's attention to paragraph 118 of the Report for 1921 and to paragraph 64 of the Report of 1923 in which it is clearly stated that
the Board of Education have consistently advised that operation should not be undertaken except with the full consent of the parents or guardians of the child.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the conflicting medical testimony on the advantage or necessity for the extraction of enlarged tonsils, he will communicate to all infant welfare centres the fact that there is an alternative treatment and that parents who desire to follow such treatment should not be pressed to have recourse to an operation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not the practice at infant welfare centres to advise the removal of tonsils, but rather to refer children needing treatment to a hospital or private doctor for advice as to the appropriate form of treatment. I see no reason therefore to take the action suggested in the question.

RADIUM.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 28.
asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to see that an adequate supply of radium is available, especially for the treatment of cancer, for the smaller hospitals and at a reasonable price; and if any steps are being taken to obtain radium in commercial quantities from within the British Empire?

Mr. R. MORRISON: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the treatment of cancer by radium is being seriously handicapped by the difficulty of obtaining supplies, he has any information as to the possibility of an increased supply and a reduction in the present cost?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not at present in a position to add anything to the reply given to a similar question on the 5th December, in which it was stated that the whole subject of radium requirements and supplies is under consideration by the sub-committee of the Committee of Civil Research.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In the meantime, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the matter is very urgent for the smaller and poorer hospitals, in view of the tremendous price that the monopoly is charging for this substance?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I sum quite aware of that, and I am trying to get the Report as quickly as possible.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman, for the guidance of voluntary hospitals, issue a statement of the information in the possession of his Department on the subject?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not think any useful purpose would be served by doing that.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. ROBINSON: 23.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt
of sick or disablement benefit, whose benefit ceased on reaching the age of 65, though they were not qualified to receive the old age pension under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925; and if it is proposed to introduce legislation providing that a man eligible for benefit, apart from the age of 65, shall continue to draw disablement benefit until he is qualified for the old age pension?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The information asked for in the first part of the question is not available and could only be obtained by a special examination of the records of every one of the 7,000 Approved Societies and Branches administering National Health Insurance and a comparison with the central records relating to claims for old age pensions. Legislation to the effect suggested in the second part of the question is not in contemplation. On the introduction of the scheme of contributory old age pensions the health insurance contribution was readjusted to cover liability for sickness and disablement benefits up to the age of 65 only, and the extension of the title to benefit beyond that age would necessitate an increase in the contribution.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: In view of the large surplus available as the result of two and a half years' working, will the right hon. Gentleman consider an amendment of the law to cover these people?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There are very-few people concerned. These are only people who entered insurance at the age of 63 or 64.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If they are very few, will the Minister explain why the contribution would have to be increased?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Because, generally, they are not covered by the existing contribution.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there not a large surplus in the fund?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not available for that purpose.

Mr. ROBINSON: 31
asked the Minister of Health the number of old age pensions granted to persons between the ages of 65 and 70 in the 12 months ended

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards England and Wales, the number of old age pensions granted to persons between the ages of 65 and 70 in the 12 months ending 31st December, 1928, was 579,626; the number of applications which were rejected was 67,525. The main grounds of rejection were inadequate insurance, age of claimant, or, where the wife was claiming in respect of her husband's insurance, the husband was found not to be qualified.

Mr. W. THORNE: In the case of a man or woman who is not in a position to produce a birth certificate, what arrangements are made for the purpose of establishing his or her claim?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.

Mr. ROBINSON: 25.
asked the Minister of Health if persons aged between 65 and 70 years, whose claims to pension under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, were rejected on the ground that their insurance had lapsed owing to unemployment, may submit a fresh claim by virtue of the provision made in the Health Insurance Act, 1928, that insurance shall not lapse if a person is unemployed and is genuinely seeking employment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that claims to pension from persons between the age of 65 and 70 have been rejected on the ground that insurance had lapsed owing to unemployment. Regulations made under Subsection (2) of Section 30 of the Contributory Pensions Act provided for the continuance of insurance where genuine unemployment was established, and that arrangement has been made permanent by the National Health Insurance Act, 1928.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.

LONDON BOROUGHS.

Mr. LANSBURY: 27.
asked the Minister of Health what is the estimated
rate which the London County Council will be called upon to levy for Poor Law purposes during the first five years of the de-rating scheme; what is the estimated rate for these county Poor Law-purposes which will fall upon such boroughs as Stepney, Bermondsey, South-wark, Bethnal Green and Poplar after the contributions to the pool for assisting richer boroughs has been paid; and the estimated county poor rate which will fall upon the City of London, the City of Westminster, and the Metropolitan boroughs of Kensington, Chelsea and Holborn?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer contains a table of figures with explanations, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it a fact that the poorer authorities coming under the new scheme of Poor Law administration in London will have to pay for 19 years double the cost to the richer boroughs for the county Poor Law services?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. that is not so.

Mr. LANSBURY: If the right hon. Gentleman has the table there, will he very kindly tell US what the figures really are, as it is a matter of some public importance?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is a very long table, and I hardly think it would be fair to the House to give the whole of the figures now.

Mr. LANSBURY: I will take an opportunity of reading it to the House, so that they may know the injustice of the arrangement.

Mr. E. BROWN: Is there anything in that table to show, as between the richer and the poorer boroughs, whether it is not a fact that the poorer boroughs as a whole lose much more heavily by de-rating than the richer boroughs and to suggest that the equalisation of the rates made for Poor Law purposes tends to be nullified by the loss of rates?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the poorer boroughs will have every reason to be thankful for the arrangement made.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures for Battersea?

Mr. BROWN: Seeing that the heavy de-rating of the poorer boroughs will mean that the loss as regards the penny-rate is proportionately larger in the poorer boroughs than in the richer boroughs, and, if the assumptions on which the right hon. Gentleman made his answer do not work out, will not the poorer boroughs be worse off because they lose more by de-rating?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The scheme and the results of the scheme must be taken as a whole, and as a whole it will be found that the poorer boroughs stand to gain very materially.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that under the financial arrangement made between the right hon. Gentleman and West Ham the poor rate will go up at least 6s. in the £?

City or borough.
Year 1926–27.









Rate actually levied.
Rate which it is estimated would have been levied if scheme, had been in operation after allowing for receipt of Supplementary Exchequer Grant.


1.
2.
3









s.
d.
s.
d.


Stepney (Averages)
…
…
…
…
…
…
19
0
16
8


Bermondsey
…
…
…
…
…
…
18
7
16
9


Soutbwark:—












Christchurch
…
…
…
…
…
…
15
8
13
11


Newington
…
…
…
…
…
…
15
2
13
7


St. George
…
…
…
…
…
…
16
0
14
2


St. Saviour
…
…
…
…
…
…
15
8
13
9


Bethnal Green
…
…
…
…
…
…
22
0
18
5


Poplar
…
…
…
…
…
…
25
0
21
0


London (City)
…
…
…
…
…
…
9
2
9
2


Westminster (City)
…
…
…
…
…
…
9
6
9
6


Kensington
…
…
…
…
…
…
10
1
10
1


Chelsea
…
…
…
…
…
…
10
6
10
6


Holborn:—












Furnivals Inn
…
…
…
…
…
…
9
11
9
11


Grays Inn
…
…
…
…
…
…
9
3
9
3


Lincolns Inn
…
…
…
…
…
…
10
0
10
0


Saffron Hill
…
…
…
…
…
…
10
0
10
0


St. Andrew
…
…
…
…
…
…
9
11
9
11


St. Giles and St. George
…
…
…
…
…
10
1
10
1


Staple Inn
…
…
…
…
…
…
10
1
10
1

It will be understood that the estimates given above relate to the year 1926–27 and will be subject to revision when the amounts of rate-borne expenditure of the standard year 1928–29 have been ascertained

Following is the answer:

The sums required to meet the precepts of the county council would, under the scheme provided for in the Local Government Bill, be payable by each of the rating authorities in the county out of a fund for the rating area into which would be payable not only the sums collected from the ratepayers of the area but the rating authority's share of the new block grant. In these circumstances it would be misleading to give figures which would suggest that the whole of the moneys required to meet those precepts in any area would be provided out of rates raised within the area. The true comparison is between the total poundage of all the rates (county and borough) levied in each area. This comparison is made in the following table for each of the cities and boroughs mentioned in the question according to estimates made by my Department, for the year 1926–27.

and certified and the valuations in force on the appointed day (1st October, 1929) as apportioned under the Eating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, have been settled.

As nearly as can at present be estimated the poundages of the rates levied in the year 1928–29 were lower on the average by about 7½d. than in the year 1926–27. This reduction is attributable mainly to a decrease in the amounts in the pound of the rates levied to meet the precepts of Poor Law authorities. In view of these reductions (which vary considerably in amount in the different boroughs), calculations made on the basis of the figures for the standard year would show, generally, amounts appreciably lower than those entered in the final column above.

Mr. LANSBURY: 26.
asked the Minister of Health what additional rate in the £ will fall upon the poorer boroughs of London during the longer period of years as a result of his suggested amendments to Clause 76, Subsection (1), of the Local Government Bill, which extends the period from 15 to 19 years, and Sub-section (1) (6) of the same Clause, which extends the years from one to five years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under the proposed Amendments mentioned by the hon. Member, any borough in London which, in accordance with the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to the Local Government Bill, is estimated to have gained as a result of the scheme, would be called upon to contribute part of its gains towards reducing the losses of the losing boroughs for a period of 19 years, instead of 15 years as proposed in the Bill, and, for the first five years of this period, the contribution would be at the amount which, under the proposals in the Bill, would have been contributed in the first year only. The total extra contribution from any gaining borough under the Amendment for the whole period of 19 years is accordingly four times the contribution of that borough for the first year. The actual sum, and its equivalent as a rate in the £, cannot be stated with any precision until it has become possible to calculate the amount of the, supplementary Exchequer grant on the basis of the rate-borne expenditure of the standard year 1928–29 and the values in force on the 1st October, 1929, as apportioned under the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

TASK WORK.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 29.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that unemployed men whose benefit is stopped subject to appeal are being given test work by the guardians and relief on condition that they repay the relief if the appeal is subsequently allowed; that in practice this means the men do work, often of a very arduous nature, for no pay at all, and that while doing this test work they are unable to seek employment; and will he look into this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The regulations in force contemplate that task work should be required in every case in which outdoor relief is given to an able-bodied man and permit the grant of such relief on loan at the discretion of the guardians, but in practice boards of guardians do not at the present time generally enforce such a test in the limited class of cases mentioned in the question. Arrangements are invariably made to secure that men who are set to work shall have all reasonable opportunities to seek employment.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Hull Guardians are actually doing it now and that they state that this is by orders from the Ministry of Health?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I am not aware of that fact. I inferred from the question put by the hon. and gallant Member that something of the kind was going on in Hull, but I was not aware that it was by order of the Ministry of Health.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into it, as I was informed of this by a very responsible official in Hull?

Mr. TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his officials are pressing the Lincoln Guardians to impose test work as a condition of relief?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Apparently that would only be in accordance with the Regulations.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has now changed the procedure that has been going on for 10 years, and that he is
compelling boards of guardians to administer the law rigidly according to orders?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is quite true that the Regulations have not been strictly observed, but I think it is time that they were more strictly observed.

Mr. LANSBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that a time when unemployment is increasing and very decent, respectable, hard working families are suffering is a time for tightening up the Regulations?

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think these Regulations should be more strictly observed at a time when, from the Government Front Bench, special appeals are being made on account of the distressed areas?

RELIEF.

Mr. MALONE: 30.
asked the Minister of Health what were the reasons for the letter written by his Department to the Northampton Board of Guardians calling attention to 14 men (13 single and one married) then receiving out-relief; whether he is aware of the number of unemployed in Northampton; by what means these men should live if deprived of out-relief; and whether his Department has made any inquiries to ascertain whether there are any men or women in the area of the Northampton Board of Guardians who are not in receipt of relief and who should be awarded relief?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The letter was based upon reports of my inspector indicating that the relief administration of this union required reorganisation. As is shown by the letter, of which I will send the hon. Member a copy, the cases named were cases in regard to which the information supplied by the guardians did not suggest that there were special reasons justifying a departure from the Regulations. The reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. The suggestion made was that if out-relief were continued it should be made conditional on the performance of a task of work. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. MALONE: Does the Minister think that the Relief Regulation Order of 1911 is applicable to the conditions of the country in 1929?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

Mr. MALONE: 31.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that recently an inspector of the Ministry of Health advised the Hardingstone Board of Guardians to discontinue outdoor relief to Mr. F. Goddard, of 9, Delapre Street, Northampton, and to offer institutional relief; that Mr. Goddard is married, has been working in the garden of the Poor Law institution at Hardingstone, and is a cripple; and if he will state the reasons why, taking into consideration that institutional relief will cost 31s. per week instead of 15s., which is now being paid in this case, this home should be broken up?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I have already informed the hon. Member in correspondence, Mr. Goddard's name was reported to the Minister by the guardians as being that of an able-bodied man to whom outdoor relief was being given, and had been given over a long period, and it was on this basis that his name was mentioned to the guardians as one in which the continuance of unconditional outdoor relief should be reconsidered.

Mr. MALONE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that these inspectors, instead of going out of their way to deprive cripples of relief, might go into the depressed areas and sec if there are any cases overlooked?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I pointed out, the report made to me, not by the inspector, but by the guardians, is that this man was not a cripple, but an able-bodied man. If there be a mistake about that, the letter which I wrote to them will not apply.

Mr. MALONE: Should not the inspectors be more careful about the work which they are doing?

Mr. THDRTLE: If it has been possible to find this man work in the garden of the institution since he came into the institution, was it not possible to find him the same work while he was living in his own home?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The whole case appears to rest upon a misapprehension. If the man is a cripple, the letter which I wrote to the guardians does not apply.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that Poor Law guardians are bound by law to relieve all the impotent poor who need relief and to set on work all who are unable to maintain them selves, although in neither case they are destitute, he will give the reasons for his recent reminder to guardians that they have only to relieve destitution?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would remind the hon. Member that it is only the duty of the guardians to give such relief as is necessary, or to set to work persons who have no means to maintain themselves. In either case it seems to me that the persons are correctly described as being in a state of destitution.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the guardians did arrange for some work to be done by these people, and that his own Ministry turned it down?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I am not aware of that fact.

YORKSHIRE JOINT VAGRANCY COMMITTEE (BREAD TICKETS).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that at a recent meeting of the York shire Joint Vagrancy Committee at Leeds it was resolved that keepers of bread stations for casuals be authorized to refuse all supplies to any casual in dulging in abuse and to confiscate his ticket; whether, seeing that those bread tickets are given under the authority of the Casual Poor Relief Order, 1925, Article 10, he has authorised such refusal or confiscation; and, if not, whether he will cause a communication to be sent to the vagrancy committee requesting that the authorisation of such refusal and confiscation be withdrawn and that the keepers of bread stations be at once so informed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has not previously been called to this matter, but I am making inquiries.

OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 36.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that under the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896, masters and matrons of workhouses and other officials are, on the death or disablement of either
of them, entitled to a pension if he or she has attained the age of 50 or has given 20 years' service; and whether he will amend the Clause in the Local Government Bill relating to the superannuation and compensation of Poor Law officers, giving them the option of remaining under the provisions of the Act of 1896 referred to?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been drawn to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, and I propose to put down an Amendment for protecting the position of officers holding joint appointments.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

LOWER THAMES TUNNEL.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the large number of unemployed, he can see his way to have the question of the construction of the Lower Thames tunnel reconsidered with a view of its construction being commenced at an early date; and, as the whole case for this tunnel was placed before the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic in London by the chairman of the Lower Thames Tunnel Committee and received the support of this Royal Commission, whether he can give the reasons for the delay in commencing this work, which is of great importance for connecting up the South-Eastern counties with the Midlands and (he North, and at the same time relieving much of the London congestion of traffic?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to answer this question. As the Prime Minister explained on the, 21st March last in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Gravesend Division (Mr. Albery), the London Traffic Advisory Committee considered that the Victoria Dock Road scheme and certain other projects in the Metropolitan area were of more urgent importance than the Lower Thames Tunnel.

FORTH (FOOT BRIDGE).

Mr. SHINWELL: 75.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can state the present position as regards the proposal to construct a foot bridge across the Forth?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have not yet received the report of the consulting engineers on the subject of the suggested road bridge over the Forth, but I hope that it will reach me during, the course of the next two or three months.

Mr. SHINWELL: Do I understand that two or three months will elapse before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman receives the first report relating to the survey, and is that not a very long time? Is it not possible to expedite the issue of the report?

Colonel ASHLEY: No. If you leave to a firm of engineers the duty of carrying out a survey, you must allow them to report in their own time.

Mr. SHINWELL: I accept that, but is it not true to say that this matter has been in the hands of the engineers for 18 months, and is it not about time that they made their report?

Colonel ASHLEY: Personally, I hope it will be earlier than two or three months, but I put it at that to be on the safe side.

Mr. E. BROWN: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that statements have appeared in the Scottish Press within the last 10 days to the effect that the report has already been made?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir, I am not aware of that fact. The report has not yet reached me, but I hope it will reach me by the end of this month.

LAMBETH BRIDGE.

Mr. W. THORNE: 76.
asked the Minister of Transport whether tenders have been invited for the new Lambeth Bridge; if so, will he state the name of the firm who have received the contract and the amount of the tender submitted; and if he is in a position to state when the work is likely to commence?

Colonel ASHLEY: The construction of the new Lambeth Bridge is a matter for the London County Council. They have, they inform me, accepted a tender of Messrs; Dorman Long and Company of £555,029 6s. 4d. for this work, which will be begun in the course of the next few weeks.

ROAD FUND (GRANTS).

Sir THOMAS DAVIES: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increasing burden entailed upon highway authorities by the cost of maintenance of classified roads the Government is prepared to make any increase in the grants from the Road Fund in respect of the maintenance of such roads?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The Government has from time to time received representations from associations of local authorities to the effect that the existing classification grants towards Class I and Class II roads and bridges were inadequate, and that the cost of the maintenance of these through lines of communication by road was unduly onerous upon the ratepayers of the areas through which they passed. In a preliminary review of the allocation of the Road Fund revenue for the coming financial year 1929–30 I have borne these representations in mind, and have decided, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, to increase the classification grants as from 1st April next from the existing level of 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. in the case of Class I roads and bridges and from the existing level of 33⅓ per cent. to 50 per cent. in the case of Class II roads and bridges. Under the provisions of the Local Government Bill classification grants to London and county boroughs will be discontinued as from 1st April, 1930, and will be merged in the general block grant. In order that these boroughs may continue to share in the concession which it is now proposed to make, an Amendment will be put down at once to the Bill providing that the loss on account of grants shall be calculated as though the increased percentages had been operative during the standard year 1928–29.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the recent change of mind on the part of the Government any connection with the forthcoming General Election?

Mr. J. HUDSON: On a point of Order. Is it in order for a question of this kind, in which urgency cannot be pleaded, to be put down in the form of a private notice question? How did it come to be put? Was it brought to your notice that there was any inspiration that caused it to be put?

Mr. SPEAKER: It was certainly brought to my notice. The hon. Member had better leave it to me to be the judge of urgency.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to make any reparation in the Budget by handing back to the Minister of Transport the £30,000,000 which he has already pinched?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will deal with that early in April.

Mr. SHINWELL: If the right hon. Gentleman wished to make a statement of this kind, why could he not have made it without having a question put to him?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Bill has come to a point where these Amendments must be put on the Paper. In fact, I think this is the last day on which Amendments can be put on the Paper to suit the convenience of the House.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman is unable to make any further grant to rural roads? He has only dealt with Class I and Class II roads.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend must carefully study my answer, which is in the nature of a benefit and a concession. When he has realised what is implied, he will feel that this is not the best moment to make further demands.

RESERVOIRS (SAFETY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Major OWEN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to allow time during the present Session of Parliament for the passing into law of the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Bill?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend in reply to his question of the 17th of July.

Major OWEN: Is it not possible for this Bill to be reintroduced this Session in order to deal with a question which is extremely urgent, and concerns imminent danger in many districts throughout the country? It is non-controversial.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The question is urgent no doubt, but unhappily it is also controversial.

Mr. THURTLE: This question was addressed to the Prime Minister, and the right hon. Gentleman did not say that he was replying on behalf of the Prime Minister; I am wondering what office he is now occupying.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN REPARATIONS.

COAL.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the adverse effect on the British coal industry of the delivery of reparation coal under the provisions of the Versailles Treaty, he will instruct the British representatives on the Committee of Experts meeting in Paris at the end of the month to discuss and frame proposals for the definite settlement of the reparation problem to press for a change in the conditions now governing reparation coal?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend may be assured that the British members of the Committee of Experts are aware of the position. I should, however, remind him that they are independent experts, and are not appointed en the basis of receiving instructions from me.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to this independent Committee, in view of the very grave state of the coal trade in the country at the present time?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that you must trust these highly competent gentlemen who have undertaken this duty to have all the matters which are relevant to their task kept continuously in their view.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Do I understand that no consultation between the Government and these representatives took place?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Naturally, they were aware of their business before they were appointed.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to take it that this Committee of Experts will report to this House before anything is done, or is the decision of these experts to be put into operation without any consideration by Members of this House?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government are responsible for whatever is done. No decision can be taken apart from His Majesty's Government. As to whatever is done, the Expert Committee recommends, but the decision is taken by His Majesty's Government, and all constitutional forms will be properly observed.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Do the Government realise that this reparation coal is very damaging to the British coal trade?

COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS (TERMS OF REFERENCE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the terms of reference under which the committee of experts on reparations are to work; and, if no terms of reference have been laid down, what precisely they have been asked to report upon?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The terms of reference of the committee are as follow:—
The Belgian, British, French, German, Italian and Japanese Governments, in pursuance of the decision reached at Geneva on 16th September, 1928, whereby it was agreed to set up a Committee of Independent Financial Experts, hereby entrust to the Committee the task of drawing up proposals for a complete and final settlement of the Reparation problem; these proposals shall include a settlement of the obligations resulting from the existing Treaties and Agreements between Germany and the Creditor Powers. The Committee shall address its Report to the Governments which took part in the Geneva decision and also to the Reparation Commission.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: There is, then, nothing in the terms of reference which reopens the question of War debts at all?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that it would be a great mistake for me to try to give an interpretation of the terms of reference which have been agreed to between so many Powers.

CUSTOMS EXAMINATIONS, VICTORIA STATION.

Sir ELLIS HUME - WILLIAMS: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Customs examinations at Victoria Station are carried out on the open platform under circumstances which endanger the health
of all concerned; and whether he will cause immediate steps to be taken, either by the Customs House authorities or by the Southern Railway Company, to provide some sort of shelter in which the necessary examination of luggage may take place with reasonable comfort both to passengers and officers of the Customs department?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I have explained on previous occasions, the arrangements and provision of accommodation for Customs examination at Victoria Station are entirely matters for the railway company.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for the last three or four years the railway companies have been promising to make proper arrangements for the convenience of passengers, and will he bring pressure —and it will have to be considerable pressure—to bear upon the Southern Railway to carry out the undertakings given?

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a very large number of people in this and other countries think that the Customs officials are a nuisance?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that the Customs proceed more expeditiously here than in any other capital?

Mr. A. ALEXANDER: Is the Chancellor aware that the position is much more acute as a result of the imposition by him of Safeguarding Duties, and that therefore he should bring pressure to bear on the railway?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no constitutional means of bringing pressure to bear on the railway company, but I have no doubt that the authorities controlling that railway will follow the debates in this House.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman is an optimist.

Mr. SIDNEY WEBB: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the arrangements for the exercise of the duties of the Customs officials are not actually made by the Commissioners of Customs, and can only be carried out with the approval of the Treasury?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is more a question of premises than of procedure.

Mr. WEBB: Will the Chancellor say whether all premises in which the Customs examinations are carried out have to be directed as well as approved by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and that no examinations can take place except on the orders of the Commissioners in the premises and in the place where they order it to be carried out? I ask the right hon. Gentleman if that is not a fact?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No doubt we have certain claims, but the question whether those claims can be unreasonably pushed is one to be decided on the merits in each case, and the Customs officers have not been able to say at present that they cannot discharge their duties.

Mr. WEBB: I ask whether it would not be correct to say that the existing arrangements are carried on with the approval of the Commissioners of Customs?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that would be going too far.

CIVIL SERVANTS (PRIVATE OCCUPATIONS).

Mr. MALONE: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any circular has been issued to civil servants asking for details of paid work and non-paid work done between 6 p.m. and 10 a.m.; if so, what are the objects of this form; what is intended to be included in the term non-paid work; and whether there are any penalties for incomplete returns?

Captain MARGESSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. No such circular has been issued by the Treasury. Under the terms of the Treasury Circular of the 11th August, 1927, which deals with the conditions under which it is allowable for civil servants to engage in private occupations, it is for Departments to provide by Departmental Regulations for any special circumstances connected with their particular activities. The general principle is that a civil servant should not engage in any activity which would impair his usefulness or be inconsistent with his position as a public servant, or might
conflict with the interests of his Department. If the hon. Member has any particular Departmental Regulation in mind, perhaps he would be good enough to let me know.

IRISH FREE STATE (BRITISH COINS).

57. The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of SIR H. BBITTAIN:
To ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is proposed to take back British coins in circulation in the Irish Free State at their face value or at their worth as bullion?

Captain MARGESSON: This question has been postponed by request.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has it? May I ask who made the request?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

NINE MILK POINT COLLIERY (BENEFIT).

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Umpire has recently granted unemployment benefit to the Nine Mile Point Colliery workmen on the ground that the conditions sought to be imposed by the Ocean Colliery Company involved breaking statutory rules; and, in view of the reason for which the workmen were locked out, will he take steps to claim from the above company the whole of such benefit paid out?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I am aware of the Umpire's decision referred to, but I have no power to do what is suggested.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 63.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, seeing that the notices issued by the Ocean Coal Company to the Nine Mile Point Colliery workmen involved a breach of the statutory provisions, he will cause inquiries to be made into the matter?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I see no practical reason, in present circumstances, for any inquiry by my Department.

INSURANCE CARDS (ENDORSEMENTS).

Mr. W. THORNE: 61.
asked the Minister of Labour what action has been
taken, if any, in the case of William Porter, who, following a term of imprisonment, found that his State insurance cards and books had been endorsed by his former employer with the words "Convicted of Theft"?

Mr. BETTERTON: It is an offence against the regulations to mark the health insurance cards or unemployment books in this or any other way. The facts of the present case are being investigated by the Ministry of Health, and I cannot yet say what action will be taken.

Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how we are going to make it known to employers that this is an illegal stamping of a man's card.

Mr. BETTERTON: That is the very matter which we are now investigating,

COMPARABLE STATISTICS OF UNEMPLOYMENT in respect of particular industries are only available from July, 1923. The following table gives the information desired as far as in is available.


Average Percentage Rates of Unemployment among Insured Persons in Great Britain.


Period of six months ended.
All Industries.
Shipbuilding and ship repairing.
Pig iron.
Steel melting and iron puddling furnaces, iron and steel rolling mills and forges.
Coal mining.
Canal, river, dock and harbour-service.


June, 1922
…
15.6
Comparable statistics not available.


December, 1922
…
12.6


June, 1923
…
11.7


December, 1923
…
11.4
43.3
13.3
21.0
2.9
24.4


June, 1924
…
10.0
28.8
12.7
18.7
3.2
25.2


December, 1924.
…
10.4
29.9
16.1
24.1
8.3
26.0


June, 1925
…
11.0
32.2
18.6
24.3
13.8
30.5


December, 1925
…
11.0
36.7
22.9
25.5
18.0
29.4


June, 1926
…
11.3
37.4
32.7
33.1
9.3*
28.7


December, 1926
…
13.3
44.2
61.6
51.0
9.0*
31.5


June, 1927
…
9.8
28.2
14.5
17.3
17.2
26.1


December, 1927
…
9.5
21.6
14.4
19.8
19.3
23.0


June, 1928
…
 10.0
22.3
14.6
20.4
19.8
29.3


December, 1928
…
11.5
30.4
19.0
22.6
24.6
31.7


* Exclusive of persons who were disqualified for unemployment benefit by reason of the dispute.

FOREST WORKERS, TINTERN.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 74.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he has received a complaint from the Tintern Parva and Chapel Hill parish councils that 32 men, lately employed by the Forestry Commissioners, have been dismissed and, owing to the fact that the Commissioners had not paid unemployment

and if the hon. Member likes to put down another question later on, after the investigation is completed, I will give him full information.

STATISTICS.

Mr. CONNOLLY: 62.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state, in percentage figures, the incidence of unemployment in the following industries for each half-year period commencing December, 1921, and ended December, 1928; all insured occupations; shipbuilding and ship repairing; iron and steel; coal mining; canal, dock, river, and harbour service?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have had the information desired tabulated, so far as it is available, and I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the, information:

insurance in respect of these men, they are now dependent upon charity and the local guardians for their maintenance; and whether he can throw any light on this matter?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): The complaint referred to has been received. Forest workers at Tintern have recently been dismissed on the completion of the
operations for which they were required. The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, excludes from unemployment insurance persons employed in agriculture, including horticulture and forestry.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Does that apply to the men employed by the Commissioners?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: Yes, Sir.

Mr. R. MORRISON: In view of the fact that these 32 men are now entirely dependent on charity, is there any intention to re-engage them?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: The Commissioners give all the employment that they are enabled to give by the grants made to them by Parliament.

Major OWEN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a similar state of affairs exists at Bettws-y-Coed, Carnarvonshire, where a number of men formerly employed by the Forestry Commission have been dismissed and have no means of subsistence at all; and is it part of the programme of the Forestry Commission to start some further work in that area?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. MORRISON: Are the Forestry Commissioners making any representations to get their grant increased, ill order that these men may be re-started in employment?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: The House has voted a certain sum of money, which enables the Forestry Commissioners to undertake certain work. All the work that is rendered possible by the grant made by Parliament has been undertaken, but various operations, naturally, come to an end in due course.

Major OWEN: Is it the intention of the Forestry Commissioners to come to this House for more money for the purpose of afforestation schemes throughout the country? Is that settled I If they have not made up their minds, I think they ought to do so.

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I think that that question had better be put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister sent a letter some time ago asking
all employers to keep as many men working as they could, and is he prepared, in view of that, to apply to the House for a supplementary grant in order that these men may be reinstated?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: The Forestry Commissioners are complying fully with the Prime Minister's request by giving the maximum employment that is rendered possible by the grant given by Parliament.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Will the Commissioners, in view of all these questions and answers, tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in Wales we have idle land and idle men—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

IRON TRADE, SCOTLAND (DISPUTE).

60. The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of MR. DENNISON:
To ask the Minister of Labour if his attention has been directed to the action of the Scottish manufactured iron trade employers having posted notices intimating reductions in wages and the lengthening of working hours of the workpeople, about which there is disagreement; if he is aware that there is a conciliation and arbitration board, the rules of which provide for disputes being referred to arbitration, and that the manufacturers have declined the workpeople's offer of arbitration in accordance with the constitution of the board; and, in view of the serious consequences of a stoppage in this industry and the desirability of maintaining the integrity of joint machinery of conciliation and arbitration, will he take all the steps in his power to have the rules of the board complied with.

Mr. DENNISON: In view of the negotiations which are pending, I beg to ask leave to postpone this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

FIVE COUNTIES MARKETING SCHEME.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 64.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the still-continuing difficulties of merchants and contractors in obtaining coal for sale abroad and also
coal for delivery when sold, owing to the operations of the so-called Five Counties Marketing Scheme; that this restriction of supply does not apply to one or two qualities or grades of coals but extends over a large range of the usual export qualities and grades; that this restriction of output is hampering the revival of the export coal trade and bunkering trade; and if he intends to take any steps in the matter?

Commodore KING: I have seen several references in the Press to a shortage of coal on the Humber for export and bunkers, but only one case, a shortage of bunker coal, has been brought to my notice. Coal was supplied in this case when I had called the attention of the Central Collieries Commercial Association to the matter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that I am not relying on any report in the Press, but on statements made to me by substantial merchants in the coal business in Hull? Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that many of them are unable to carry out their contracts and deliver coal already sold owing to this artificial restriction?

Commodore KING: No, Sir. I am not aware of that fact.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. and gallant Member look into this matter and send someone to the Humber ports to investigate it?

Commodore KING: I am in constant touch with the Humber ports.

ROYALTY CHARGES.

Mr. WELLOCK: 66.
asked the Secretary for Mines what was the average royalty charge per ton of coal raised last year in Scotland, England, and Wales, respectively?

Commodore KING: The average royalty charge per ton of saleable coal raised last year in Scotland was 6.21d., in England 4.93d., and in Wales and Monmouth 7.48d.

Mr. WELLOCK: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain why the amount is so high for Wales?

Commodore KING: Because I understand that they entered into higher contracts with the royalty owners.

Mr. DENNISON: Do these figures include wayleave rents?

Commodore KING: I should want notice of that question.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not remarkable that there has been no reduction in royalty rents in spite of the depression in the coal industry?

Commodore KING: Royalty rents have been reduced in a number of cases.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the hon. and gallant Member indicate where these reductions have taken place?

Commodore KING: If the hon. Member reads the papers, he will see that several pits are to be reopened owing to reductions which have been made.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand that in this matter we must take our information from the newspapers, and that a Government Department cannot furnish statistics?

Commodore KING: No, Sir. If the hon. Member puts down a question, I will give him an answer.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Is it not the fact that royalty rents would have been reduced much more if it had not been for the extra taxation which has been piled upon royalties?

AFGHANISTAN.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give any details of the evacuation of the women and children of the International Corps Diplomatic of Kabul in December last; whether he can arrange with the India Office to have issued in an official Report the despatches of the Commander-in-Chief in India dealing with these air operations; and the number and nationality of those rescued, supplies carried, type of machines used, the name of the air officer in command, and the names of pilots who performed this feat?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I have been asked to reply. At present I have very little information beyond what has already appeared in the Press. So far as I am aware, the total number of British and foreign nationals removed
by aircraft from Kabul has been 140, of whom 50 were of British nationality, 37 of Turkish, 23 of German, 10 of French, 9 of Persian, and the remainder of miscellaneous nationalities. The Government of India has been asked for a report on the whole subject, and the question of publishing the remaining particulars asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend will be dealt with on its receipt. I am sure that hon. Members will have noticed with satisfaction the remarkable efficiency with which this evacuation was carried out and the absence of casualty or accident.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

AIR SQUADRONS.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give the number of air squadrons now kept in India; and whether any additional squadrons have been sent to India during the current financial year?

Earl WINTERTON: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is eight, and to the second part two, which are included in the eight. This increase was finally decided upon in May, 1927, and the decision was announced in India in January, 1928.

Mr. MALONE: Can the Minister give us any particulars of the terrible bombing fatality that took place in India?

Earl WINTERTON: That has nothing to do with this question. I should have to have a specific question put to me upon that point.

BOMBING ACCIDENT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has any information about the reported bombing of Indian troops by an aeroplane near the Afghan frontier?

Earl WINTERTON: I have been asked to reply. I deeply regret to have to state that the accident referred to in the hon. and gallant Member's question has taken place, and that three Indian officers and 10 Indian troopers, with 16 horses, have been reported killed, and 12 troopers wounded. The whole unfortunate incident will be fully investigated, and I
am not in a position to make any further statement at present.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Noble Lord able to say whether the aeroplane concerned was on active service or engaged in practice?

Earl WINTERTON: I understand that the aeroplane in question was engaged in practice, but I think it would be unfair to all concerned for me to make any statement until a full report has been received.

IRAQ.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to the crisis in Iraq; in particular, whether the Iraq authorities wish to have the British Air Force removed from Iraq; and what is the estimated cost of removing that force and its equipment to Transjordania or Palestine?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I understand that the resignation of the Iraqi Cabinet, to which the right hon. and gallant Member doubtless refers, is the result of a failure to reach agreement with His Majesty's Government in the matter of the revision of the military and financial agreements concluded with the Iraq Government in 1924. The main questions at issue relate to the local forces of Iraq, not to the British Air Force. No question of the removal of the Royal Air Force from Iraq arises.

POST OFFICE (CHRISTMAS WAGES).

Mr. GERALD HURST: 73.
asked the Postmaster-General whether it is the general Post Office practice to pay its servants double wages for work on Christmas Day; and, if so, why temporary (ex-service) postmen in Man-Chester we are only paid one and a-half times the usual wage last Christmas Day?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The regular Post Office staff receive a full week's pay for the week in which Christmas Day falls, and those required to attend on that day receive extra pay for such attendance at one and a-half
times their normal rate. The temporary Christmas staff are paid for the time actually worked, and payment for work on Christmas Day is at one and a-half times the rate for attendance on ordinary days. The staff at Manchester have been paid on the same basis as the staff in all other parts of the country.

TRADE AND COMMERCE (IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY).

Mr. WELLOCK: 77.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the quantities of steel ingots and castings and of pig iron produced in Great Britain during 1928 and each of the four previous years?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The answer takes the form of a table of figures, and the hon. Member will perhaps agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following table shows the output of pig iron and of steel ingots and castings in Great Britain in each of the years 1924 to 1928, as published by the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers:


Year.
Pig Iron.
Steel Ingots and Castings.



Tons.
Tons.


1924
7,307,400
8,201,200


1925
6,261,700
7,385,400


1926
2,458,200
3,596,100


1927
7,292,900
9,097,100


1928
6,611,300
8,525,100

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

SHANGHAI DEFENCE FORCE.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for War what proportion of the voluntary defence force in Shanghai, as at present existing, is furnished, respectively, by subjects of Great Britain, China, Japan, and by Europeans other than those of British birth?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The
Shanghai Volunteer Corps is an international volunteer unit, the responsibility for which rests with the Shanghai Municipality. I have therefore no precise figures of the composition of its units. But from such information as is available in the War Office it would appear that in May, 1928, out of a total strength of some 1,500, the strengths of the Japanese and Chinese companies were approximately 160 and 140 respectively. Of the remainder of the corps it is estimated that, at least 700 were British.

Lieut.-Commander KENW0RTHY: Is there not a British officer attached to this Corps as adjutant or officer instructor, and why therefore is the information not available accurately?

Mr. COOPER: British officers are lent to the Corps and a British officer commands the Corps. I have no doubt that if I had time I could ascertain the exact figures with regard to the various units.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not extraordinary that the Military Intelligence Department has not this information?

Mr. COOPER: I do not think it is at all extraordinary.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is not the Volunteer Defence Force operating in association with the Government forces, and if that is so, why has the Financial Secretary not got the information

Mr. COOPER: The force is not controlled by the Government but by the Shanghai municipality and although we have a fair idea of the exact numbers of the various units and nationalities we have not the complete figures with regard to every detail.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not true to say that in view of the reduction now taking place in the forces sent to Shanghai practically the real defence of Shanghai is now falling almost entirely on the British mercantile community?

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the salary of the officer who has been lent to this force borne by the home Government?

Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has received any representations from British interests in Shanghai protesting against any reduction being made in the strength of the Shanghai Defence Force?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Representations to this effect have been received from the British Chamber of Commerce at Shanghai.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: Do the Government intend taking those representations into consideration, in view of the fact that we are told that there is a considerable reduction in the strength of the force?

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not the fact that, when those representations were made, an offer of at any rate partial payment of the cost of the troops was also made by this body?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The matter referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) depends upon certain statements which are inaccurate. They were founded on a report as to disturbances in the Yang-Tse, but, so far as we know, those disturbances do not exist.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the hon. and gallant Member kindly repeat it?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that, when those representations were made, the Shanghai Chamber of Commerce offered to pay part of the cost of retaining the troops, and are they doing so?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Really, that does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Mr. THURTLE: May I take it that we have had no representations from the British interests in Shanghai that we should annex Shanghai?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Arising out of the reply of my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether the Government are satisfied that the reduced number of troops
is sufficient, even with the very efficient aid of the British volunteers there, to maintain peace and order in Shanghai?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think so.

Mr. J. HUDSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish us to understand that the information that comes from these authorities in Shanghai is not very reliable in the matter of what is going on there?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I never said that.

HANKOW.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position of affairs in Hankow, and particularly whether foreigners living and owning property there have any representatives upon the municipality or any voice in the matter of taxation which is imposed upon them: and whether British subjects are at any disadvantage as compared with subjects of other nations in the matter of taxation or representation?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): As regards the ex-British concession at Hankow the reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. The ex-German and ex-Russian concessions, in which foreigners enjoyed representation, have recently been incorporated by the Chinese authorities with the Chinese municipality of Wuhan. The question of future foreign representation in those two districts is under discussion. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Do I understand from the Under-Secretary's reply that he is satisfied with the present position of the British community in regard to representation in Hankow, or are negotiations now proceeding which will give satisfactory results?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: So far as I know the conditions in the ex-British concession are satisfactory; but, as regards the other concessions, my hon. Friend must realise that they are ex-German and ex-Russian concessions which have now been incorporated by the Chinese Government into the When municipality.

WOOLWICH ARSENAL (RESEARCH WORKER'S DEATH).

Mr. W. THORNE: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the death of Arthur Leonard Ball, of Stratford, a research worker employed at Woolwich Arsenal; if inquiry has been made as to whether death was due to fumes from nitroglycerine; and if he proposes to take any action to avoid any future occurrence of this character?

Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir, I have seen a report of the inquest at which the Coroner recorded in his verdict that the death was accelerated by the deceased having come into contact with some chemical poison allied to nitroglycerine. As regards the last part of the question, I am advised that nitroglycerine poisoning is an extremely rare occurrence and may imply a pre-disposition on the part of the individual which cannot unfortunately be ascertained beforehand. But instructions are being issued that, if any worker feels indisposed as a possible result of contact with the materials he is using, he must at once report the fact to his superior.

COMMISSION OF VERIFICATION AND CONCILIATION.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government attach importance to the establishment of a commission of verification and conciliation under present circumstances; and what attitude does His Majesty's Government intend to take upon the matter at the next meeting at Geneva?

Mr. LOCKER - LAMPSON: His Majesty's Government and the other Governments concerned desire to achieve a liquidation of the questions still outstanding between them. The chief of these are the final settlement of the reparation problem and the determination of the occupation by Allied forces of German territory. The settlement of these questions was the object of the Geneva resolution of the 16th September last, which contemplated their solution through the creation of a body of experts to report on the one and the establishment of a Commission of Verification and Conciliation to facilitate the other. His
Majesty's Government will, therefore, give whatever assistance they can in reaching by these means complete agreement and thus finally disposing of these troublesome questions.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Am I right in understanding from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the setting up of this Commission of Verification and Conciliation will depend upon the report of the experts dealing with the reparations question, or has that matter been postponed, at any rate till the report on the reparations question is before the Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No; I think the discussions will go on simultaneously.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am right in supposing, surely, from the right hon. Gentleman's reply, that the two important questions are the evacuation of the Rhineland and the reparations question, and that the Commission of Conciliation and Verification takes a less important position owing to the position of the other questions?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No. That question was dealt with by my right hon. Friend the other day. I think he explained it clearly, and I have nothing to add.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us what business the Government propose to take next week?

Mr. CHURCHILL: On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, Local Government Bill, Committee, constituting the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th allotted days.
The Business for Friday will be announced later.
If there is time on any day, other Orders will be taken.

BILLS PRESENTED.

RECONSTITUTED CEEAM BILL,

"to regulate the sale and manufacture of reconstituted cream," presented by Mr. Everard; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Brigadier-General Clifton
Brown, Dr. Vernon Davies, Captain Robert Henderson, Mr. Lamb, Mr. Riley, Mr. Smith-Carington, and Commander Williams; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

GAMES AT FUNFAIRS BILL,

"to amend the law with respect to games and competitions at funfairs," presented by Mr. Groves; supported by Mr. Hayday, Mr. George Hirst, Mr. Potts, Mr. Grundy, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Wall-head, and Mr. Hore-Belisha; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Major Sir Richard Barnett to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Hairdressers' and Barbers' Shops (Sunday Closing) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (UNOPPOSED BILLS COMMITTEE) (PANEL).

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Ten Members to be the Panel to serve on Unopposed Bills Committees under Standing Order 105: Mr. Cape, Sir Martin Conway, Captain Crookshank, Sir Bertram Falle, Sir James Grant, Lieut.-Colonel James, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Smith-Carington, Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay, and Mr. George Thorne.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Captain Holt and had appointed in substitution:, Colonel Howard-Bury.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to
Standing Committee A (in respect of the Hairdressers' and Barbers' Shops (Sunday Closing) Bill): Mr. Barr, Mr. Brockle-bank, Sir Samuel Chapman, Mr. Rhys Davies, Captain Garro-Jones, Sir Vivian Henderson, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Templeton, and Mr. Womersley.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated Standing Committee A as the Committee on which Government Bills shall not have precedence.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (added in respect of the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Bill): Major Steel; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Arthur Evans.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 23rd January.]

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 71.—(General Exchequer grants to counties.)

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Amendments in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the University of Wales (Mr. Ernest Evans) are consequent on a proposal which has not been accepted by the Committee. They therefore fall.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: (seated and covered)
On a point of Order. Was it not brought to your attention, Sir, that the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) was desirous of speaking?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I very much regret it, I waited after putting the Question.

Mr. HUDSON: With great respect, Sir, what is your view of the amount of time that should be allowed to give an hon. Member an opportunity to catch your eye?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I looked round.

Mr. HUDSON: If I may submit respectfully, Sir, you never turned your eyes in this direction. My hon. Friend was endeavouring to attract your attention.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 103.

Division No. 117.]
AYES.
[4.1 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Drewe, C.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Apsley, Lord
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lamb, J. Q.


Atholl, Duchess of
Ellis, R. G.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Bainlel, Lord
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vers


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lumley, L. R.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Everard, W. Lindsay
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McLean, Major A.


Bethel, A.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Macquisten, F. A.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fermoy, Lord
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Briggs, J. Harold
Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Briscoe, Richard George
Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Capt. D.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gates, Percy
Meller, R. J.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Goff, Sir Park
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Buckingham, Sir H.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Monseil, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Bullock, Captain M.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Burman, J. B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrs f'ld.)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Carver, Major W. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hamilton, Sir George
Penny, Frederick George


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Harland, A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Chapman, Sir S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Christie, J. A.
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Radford, E. A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hills, Major John Waller
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hilton, Cecil
Ropner, Major L.


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Salmon, Major I.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cooper, A. Dull
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sandon, Lord


Cope, Major Sir William
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sinclair, Col.T. (Queen's Univ.,Beltst)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dina, C.)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Iveagh, Countess of
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Tinne, J. A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Womersley, W. J.


Stanley, Lord (Fyide)
Waddington, R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Storry-Deans, R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.( Kingston-on-Hull)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)



Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Watts, Sir Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wells, S. R.
Sir George Hennessy and Mr. F. C.




Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Scurr, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Shinwell, E.


Bellamy, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Briant, Frank
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromley, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Sullivan, Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lansbury, George
Taylor, R. A.


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W. G.
Longbottom, A. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Townend, A. E.


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Glbbins, Joseph
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Groves T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Purcell, A. A.
Wright, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Paling.

CLAUSE 72.—(Additional Exchequer grants to counties.)

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move, in page 58, line 1, to leave out the word "quinquennium," and to insert instead thereof the words "fixed grant period."

This Amendment is consequential.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Surely before this Amendment is passed, the Committee is entitled to some statement as to its real meaning, because under the Guillotine we have been unable to discuss the full bearings of these arrangements. I understand the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to be that, instead of having successive quinquennia, we are to have a seven-year period and then quinquennia, but surely we are entitled to have some statement from him
as to the exact working out of this arrangement. I am told that there was a statement made yesterday, but though I went very carefully through the OFFICIAL REPORT—I was fortunate enough to be in Scotland yesterday, but unfortunate enough to miss the Debate—I did not observe any discussion of what I consider to be the most important issue, namely, what the effect of this arrangement is going to be upon the rating authorities in respect of the loss of yield of a penny rate in their areas. The Committee has already decided to change the present system by de-rating, which means narrowing the basis of assessment in every area. We have had no statement from the Treasury bench or any statements in the four White Papers to show us precisely how this will work out as between one area and another, and I submit that we are entitled to have from
the Minister, before this goes through, some statement as to what the Minister of Health thinks will be the effect of rearranging the grants on the basis of seven years and then five years in succession.
I put to the right hon. Gentleman a question shortly before the House rose in December as to loss of rates in various areas, and the figures I got did not reassure me as to the statements that have been made by the Parliamentary Secretary in the country and elsewhere as to there being no loss of rates under this new system in various areas. I believe the statement to be at least dubious. I will read the answer sent to me by the Minister:
As the estimated loss of rates for every county district in the country has not yet been ascertained"—
Surely this Committee ought not to pass this Amendment carrying the whole Clause with it, when the Minister admits, in answer to a question, that they have not considered this aspect of the question in the county districts. The answer continues:
it is not possible to pick out the actual extremes as desired by the hon. Member. It is, of course, possible to select cases which must be very near the extremes, and the undermentioned table gives examples on such information as is available. These estimates are based on the same-assumption as the estimates given in the White Papers Cmd. 3134 and 3227. In the case of county districts the loss is given for the rates raised for purely local purposes.
With regard to counties, I would like the right hon. Gentleman to notice that Durham is estimated to lose 267d. per head.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Captain Bourne, to give a ruling as to whether it is in order on this particular Amendment to discuss a matter which has already been settled on a previous occasion? I would draw your attention to the fact that this Clause deals with the additional Exchequer grants to counties, and the substitution of the words I have put on the Paper has nothing whatever to do with the point the hon. Member is raising. If the word "quinquennium" were left in here, for the first time in the Bill, as far as I can see the only effect would be to deprive the counties of the guarantee for the first two periods.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: On that point of Order. I must admit I find it a little difficult to understand how the hon. Member makes out his argument for this particular Amendment, because as far as I can see, if the Amendment is defeated, and the word "quinquennium" stands, it will result in the additional Exchequer grant and the general Exchequer grant being administered for a different period, but it would not affect the incidence of either grant. It would seem to me that if the hon. Member wishes to raise that point, it would come better when I put the Question, "That the Clause stand part," or when we come to the new Government Amendment, when the hon. Member can discuss the whole position of the Exchequer grant, but this appears to be. not the proper place to do so.

Mr. BROWN: I am obliged by that Ruling, but it has been very difficult to decide just when one could speak in order on this particular point, as we have never had any discussion with the Minister in the House or any information in the White Papers as to the effect of this arrangement. We have no figures except those which I will proceed to give to the Committee. It is very difficult for Members to find out precisely when it will be in order to discuss these new arrangements in their bearing on the yield of a penny rate, which is a most important issue, and has not yet been discussed in this Committee. I bow to your Ruling, Captain Bourne, and I will try to make my observations when the Question "That the Clause stand part" is put.

Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next two Amendments on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans)—in page 58, line 2, after the second word "the," to insert the words "sum of the," and to leave out the word "apportionment" and to insert instead thereof the word"apportionments"—are consequential on the scheme not being accepted.

Further Amendment made:

In page 58, line 6, leave out the word "quinquennium" and insert instead thereof the words "fixed grant period."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr.
CHAMBERLAIN: In page 58, leave out lines 9 to 40, and insert instead thereof the words:
(2) As respects each subsequent fixed grant period if in the case of any county the county apportionment falls short of the standard sum increased by the greater of the two following sums, that is to say—

(a) a sum equivalent to one shilling per head of the estimated population of the county for the appropriate year;
(b) a sum equivalent to one-third of the excess of the county apportionment for the period in question over what would have been the county apportionment for the period in question had the General Exchequer Contribution for that period been the same as the General Exchequer Contribution for the first fixed grant period;
there shall in respect of each year of the fixed grant period in question be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the council of the county a sum equal to the deficiency.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the standard sum as respects any county shall be the amount of the loss on account of rates and grants of that county, so, how ever, that—

(a) if, for the fixed grant period in question the General Exchequer Contribution is less than the General Exchequer Contribution for the first fixed grant period, the standard sum shall be the said amount reduced proportionately to such diminution in the General Exchequer Contribution;
(b) if for the fixed grant period in question the weighted population of the county is less than the weighted population of the county for the first fixed grant period adjusted as regards unemployment, the standard sum shall be the said amount reduced (or if a reduction therein has been made under paragraph (a) of this sub-section, that reduced amount further reduced) proportionately to such diminution in weighted population.
(4) In this section the expression.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before? call on the Minister of Health to move the next Amendment, I wish to point out that the Amendment of the hon. Lady the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence)—in page 58, line 17, to leave out the words "adjusted as regards unemployment"—and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd)—in page 58 to leave out from the word "county" in line 33 to the word "and" in line 40—will fall if this Amendment is carried, and, therefore, if they wish to preserve their Amendments, they must move them as Amendments to the Government Amendment.
If it is desired to do that, it will be necessary to leave out lines 9 to 40, and then we can discuss any Amendments on the proposed Amendment. Until those lines are taken out of the Bill, that is not possible. I do not know precisely what line the Committee will wish to take in this matter.

Miss LAWRENCE: On a point of Order. Will it be possible to discuss the whole of the Clause on the Amendment to leave out lines 9 to 40?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Minister will move the Amendment as a whole. He will move to leave out in order to insert, and that will be the time to discuss the Amendments. If any hon. Members desire to move Amendments to the proposed Amendment, we must get rid of lines 9 to 40 before I can accept their Amendments.

Mr. E. BROWN: The Amendments cover two distinct questions: (1) the question of the weighted population and its adjustment with regard to unemployment, and (2) the sum which is designated as the standard sum. I am not quite sure, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, whether your Ruling covers both questions.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman has raised the question of the standard sum. It is not for me to point out exactly how it can be done, but it is quite obvious an Amendment will be in order to enable the hon. Member to take that point.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN rose—

MR. BROWN: On a point of Order. Do I understand that if the Minister moves this Amendment, it will not be in order to move the omission of lines 9 to 40?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is moving to omit lines 9 to 40. Consequently, if this is carried—and it is part of the Minister's Amendment—it obviously means that every Amendment must come into line with it. The Amendments must be moved as Amendments to the words which the Minister proposes to insert.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it your intention, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, to put this as two questions—first to "leave out" and then "to insert"?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question to leave out lines 9 to 40 will be the first upon which the Committee will have to come to a decision. If the Committee decide that those lines are to be left out of the Clause, the question will then arise as to what words shall be inserted in their place, and that will be the moment when hon. Members, if they so desire, can move Amendments to the words which the Minister proposes to insert.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 58, to leave out lines 9 to 40, inclusive, and to insert instead thereof the words:
(2) As respects each subsequent fixed grant period if in the case of any county the county apportionment falls short of the standard sum increased by the greater of the two following sums, that is to say—

(a) a sum equivalent to one shilling per head of the estimated population of the county for the appropriate year;
(b) a sum equivalent to one-third of the excess of the county apportionment for the period in question over what would have been the county apportionment for the period in question had the General Exchequer Contribution for that period been the same as the General Exchequer Contribution for the first fixed grant period;
there shall in respect of each year of the fixed grant period in question be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the council of the county a sum equal to the deficiency.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the standard sum as respects any county shall be the amount of the loss on account of rates and grants of that county, so, how ever, that—

(a) if, for the fixed grant period in question the General Exchequer Contribution is less than the General Exchequer Contribution for the first fixed grant period, the standard sum shall be the said amount reduced proportionately to such diminution in the General Exchequer Contribution;
(b) if for the fixed grant period in question the weighted population of the county is less than the weighted population of the county for the first fixed grant period adjusted as regards unemployment, the standard sum shall be the said amount reduced (or if a reduction therein has been made under paragraph (a) of this sub-section, that reduced amount further reduced) proportionately to such diminution in weighted population.
(4)In this section the expression
I gather from what has passed that some exception is taken in certain quarters to some parts of my Amendment. I propose to wait until I hear those objections
developed before I address myself to them. In the present instance I think I had better confine myself to explaining as shortly as possible what is the purpose of my Amendment. The Amendment arises out of conversations which I have had with the Associations of local authorities, and the words which are now to be found on the Paper represent the agreement which I came to with them and which, I think, will be a fair one. The whole Clause deals with what is called the additional Exchequer grants to counties, that is to say what is known otherwise as the guarantees in the case of counties. The Committee will remember that as the Bill is drafted there is a guarantee in the case of every county that in the first quinquennium there shall be at least a gain of one shilling per head of the population. The Amendment which is on the Paper extends that guarantee, and while the original Bill guarantees the counties against loss in subequent quinquennia the effect of the Amendment is to continue the guaranteed gain of one shilling not only for the first quinquennium but for all time.
There arose then, another point which really only affected a very small number of local authorities. These authorities represented that, although it was likely, owing to the working of the ratio which is provided for in a previous Clause, that the total amount of the Exchequer contribution would increase in subequent grant periods, nevertheless their circumstances were such that they would not benefit by that increase in the general Exchequer contribution which would merely go to diminish the amount of their deficiency which was already covered by the shilling a head which has been guaranteed to them as gain. They represented that, although population might not increase and that although their conditions might not materially change, nevertheless the rise in the standards of the services which all local authorities are likely to give in the future would demand from them some additional expenditure. Therefore, they said: "Why can you not give us some share in any increase which may take place in subsequent grant periods in the general Exchequer contribution." After discussion with them, I agreed that they should have some share in this increased general Exchequer contribution
Consequently, the form in which we shall find the Clause, if my Amendment is accepted, will mean that in those areas as well as in other areas there will be given to these authorities a share in the new Exchequer money which will amount to one-third of the excess over the original apportionment. But there will always be the overriding guarantee of the shilling a head. If the third is more than a shilling, they will get more, and, if less, they will get the shilling. Therefore, they are amply protected and are satisfied with the arrangement.

Miss LAWRENCE: The guarantee for the counties is that they shall receive, in the event of two very uncertain contingencies, a very small sum in excess of what they lost in 1928. The money value of the guarantee of one shilling per head of the population sounds a very good thing, but when who examine it with regard to the only districts which we now have before us—the county boroughs— we find that the guarantee of a shilling per head of the population sometimes represents just over a penny rate and sometimes rather more than a 2d. rate. We have no figures with regard to the counties, but the county boroughs may form some analogy. Speaking from memory of my own area, a shilling per head of the population is something in the neighbourhood of a penny rate. The amount guaranteed therefore is in itself quite small. The guarantee will not, I think, usually be more than the small sum of one shilling. There are absolutely no figures to go upon. We are in the region of hypothesis, but the general opinion is that the second guarantee gives little more than the first.
This is to be a guarantee on the sum lost in rates and grants in the year 1928, and it is a guarantee which is to apply for all time. I do not for a moment wonder why the Minister was willing to make this guarantee apply for all time when I consider the rises in rates and rateable value which have taken place even during the last ten or twelve years. I do not know whether the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) has any statistics of the increase in rateable value in his area due to the building of great commercial premises, but, if you take any expanding area, the rise in rateable value over a term of years amounts to a very big figure indeed,
To compensate for that there is to be a penny or twopence on the rates of 1928–29. The health grants, the road grants, and other grants due to a. natural expansion in a great many localities are, in themselves, sufficient to-account for another penny on the rates. To say that a penny or twopence on the rates will meet all the necessary health work and road work is to say something; which is absurd. For ever and ever the penny or twopence extra on the rates of 1928–29 is to be the sole guarantee. No wonder the Minister has extended the guarantee? It is a thing which is so small that it is of no particular use to a county and is not in the least commensurate with the loss of rateable value-and expanding rates.
This is to be subject to two conditions. First of all, the locality is to get nothing-unless the general expenditure of the-country as a whole has gone up, and, secondly, the local locality is to get nothing if the weighted population has, changed within a certain time. I comeback to a point which I have often urged, namely, that this is the worst and most cruel time to stereotype the income of local authorities. If we were back in the-old days when we had prosperous times-throughout the whole of England and Wales this particular point I wish to make now would not be a point of any importance. We see to-day some local; authorities prospering, with their rateable value going up, while other localities, the depressed localities, are sinking lower and lower. Supposing prosperity comes to certain parts of England, leaving, some districts and trades still in an unhappy condition, it might very well be that the rate expenditure of the country as a whole might go down by the removal of the frightful burden of the Poor Law. Supposing that England and Wales, generally speaking, became prosperous again and we were-able to do away with the enormous cost. of the poor and the domiciliary poor, the rateable expenditure would almost certainly, on the whole, go down. Hence you might quite well have left some districts, miserable islands in a sea of prosperity, where the expenditure on these matters will have gone up. Ten, 15 or 20 years ago that would have seemed fantastic, but it is not fantastic to-day. That is the injustice of making the
guarantee to these authorities depend upon the general expenditure.
The second point is one to which I shall refer more fully on my subsequent Amendment, namely, the decrease in the weighted population. A little later on we shall find that the weighted population of a place may come down even if its circumstances remain the same, on account of the reduction in the multiple? of the unemployment factor. The weighted population will change, and change very violently, even in places where the whole circumstances remain the same. I will speak on that matter in detail in connection with the Amendment which I have on the Paper. Therefore, you may have a weighted population less, but the demand the same. You cannot form any forecast of what the weighted population is going to be in future years, when you have altered the weights on which that population depends. Therefore, by imposing this second consideration, you make the guarantee so small a thing, so uncertain a thing that it is of no value at all. The local authorities have not even this guarantee. The only thing which they have got, and I think it is important, is that the operation of the formula shall be postponed for seven years instead of five years. That is a great gain.
I am glad that the Minister of Health is present, because I would like to ask him whether he can reconcile his statement with a statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister of Health told us how he was giving money with both hands to the local authorities, to make them happy and contented, while on the other hand the Parliamentary Secretary has said that the local authorities have fought against having the full blessings of the Minister's scheme. There seems a certain discrepancy between those two statements. I should like the Minister of Health to tell us why he said that he was making every authority happy and giving them more money, more guarantees, more money in respect of the roads, while the Parliamentary Secretary tells us how strongly they fought against the establishment of the scheme, and how very pleased they were that they had been allowed to escape some of its blessings. This scheme is not scientifically estimated. It relates to two
guarantees which are of so hypothetical a nature that they make it a matter of uncertainty for any particular authority whether or not the guarantees will operate.

Mr. E. BROWN: This is rather a difficult subject to follow, and I should like to come back to the point which I have been making, but from another angle. We are now proposing to arrange for a guarantee based upon a ratio. It works out in this way. If there be an increase in the total rate-borne expenditure, the arrangement is that the ratio shall not be less than it would have been in the standard year 1928–29. It works out in actual figures that the ratio will be 25 per cent. of the total increase. If, say, the increase was £1,200,000, the Exchequer would find £300,000 and the local authorities would find the £900,000. That is very important from the point of view of the local authorities who will lose heavily in the yield of a penny rate. First of all, we have grants which are percentage grants now, secondly, we have grants which will remain percentage under this arrangement, and, thirdly, we have grants that are percentage grants now which will merge into formula grants under this arrangement. Then we have the ratio which now appears to be 25 per cent. of the total, and the guarantee that the ratio shall never be lower in subsequent years.
Seeing that we have these two kinds of expenditure now, expenditure inside the formula and expenditure outside the formula, that may work out very well in areas where the loss on the rates has been small, and the disturbance of the yield of a penny rate has also been small. What I want to know is, what is likely to be the effect of this guarantee in areas where two things happen—fir3t of all, where there is a great disturbance in the yield of a penny rate, so that it comes down. I have in mind the case of a small borough where the yield of a penny rate comes down by £489. That is an enormously heavy decrease in the yield, through de-rating, in a very small borough. Suppose, first of all, you get this heavy loss in the area and there should be also a great increase of total expenditure, due to causes not now foreseen, I want to find out what the effect of the ratio will be in that particular area. By the admission of the Minister's
own Memorandum the ratio will only work out at 25 per cent. of the total increase. If that be so, and you have three-fourths of the increased expenditure under this new system coming down on the area, will it not mean an excessively heavy burden in every case where the yield of the penny rate has been decreased heavily?
I read last week a new book on Edinburgh, and I found therein a story which seems appropriate. Baillie Smith, in 1795, was elected to the Edinburgh Corporation. Being a banker and financier, the first thing that struck him was the magnitude of the financial operations. He asked his fellow councillors whether any books were kept. They said that they did not know, except that once a week the city chamberlain—an appropriate name at the present moment—the city treasurer, put his cash-book on the table. When he had examined it, he said: "I went into it, but I confess that I never understood it," and I think he said that the city chamberlain never meant it to be understood by the corporation. It strikes me that this scheme in the Bill is not meant to be understood by members of local councils, or by Members of Parliament, and I include myself among the number. I am making my inquiries to-day on behalf of authorities which will lose heavily.
The Minister has given me certain figures. In regard to the counties, the county which will lose most on the rates is Durham, with 267d. per head, or £1,108,000. Surrey comes lowest among the counties, with a loss of 58d. per head, equivalent to £188,300. Of the county boroughs, Burton-on-Trent loses most heavily, to the extent of 316d. per head, amounting to £64,000. South end loses the least with 18d. per head, equivalent to £7,800. Of the non-county boroughs, Middleton, in Lancashire, loses most with 220d. per head, amounting to £26,000, while Richmond, in Yorkshire, comes lowest with 15d. per head amounting to £254. Of the urban districts, Greasborough ranks the highest with a loss of 308d. per head, amounting to £13,200, while Wanstead is lowest with a loss of 1d. per head, totalling £80. In the rural districts, Rotherham comes highest with 56d. per head, amounting to £s,700, and Stockbridge lowest with 1d. per head, amounting to £20. In Durham,
the estimated loss on the yield of a penny rate is £4,080, while in Surrey it is, £1,750. I can imagine the Minister saying that owing to the arrangement which we are discussing, and the new formula based on weighted population, plus the guarantee, Durham will not merely lose by loss of rates, but will gain by the new arrangement, and therefore may be better off. My point is that inside the county of Durham there will be districts not getting the general county guarantee but getting a distribution according to a, secondary distribution, not on weighted population but on actual population.
I have consulted people who are connected with the smaller authorities, who, have not had the opportunities of discussing with the Minister that the larger authorities have had, and I find that there is intense anxiety amongst these smaller authorities as to what this artificial new arrangement, plus the guarantee, which they say they do not clearly understand, will mean. We want a clear statement on the point. First of all, what does this new guarantee mean in terms of an area not gaining; by the formula, losing in terms off application by the actual population, if that area also loses heavily in terms of de-rating? I can assure the Minister that there are a great many people, local administrators, who are intensely worried: because they fear that, despite the guarantee and the maintenance of the ratio on the basis of a standard year, where they lose heavily on the yield of a penny rate they fear that any increased; expenditure not met by the guarantee will fall very heavily on the remainder of the ratepayers in the area.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: The Minister's explanation was all too brief, more especially as he did not refer to. Subsection (3), which is a little obscure; and in regard to which we should have welcomed a rather fuller explanation of the new Amendment. This Amendment is one to make provision for an illusory guarantee which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the local authorities. There is a quite sincere belief in many quarters that this overriding guarantee and the modified guarantee are substantially guarantees which may be of value to the local authorities. I am not sure that that will be so. Every reference to this matter always refers to the
increase of rates within the scheme, but even within the scheme it does not seem to me that this new guarantee is going to ensure county authorities against possible increases of rates.
After all, a diminution in the rateable value of local authorities is part of the scheme, and it is going to put those local authorities whose needs are greatest in the greatest difficulty. It is those areas which are highly industrialised which are losing the greater proportion of their rateable value. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has pointed out that the County of Durham will lose something over £1,000,000 in rateable value, while the County of Surrey will lose quite a small sum, the difference being due to the fact that in the County of Durham there are a larger number of hereditaments which are to be de-rated under the scheme. The County of Durham is going to lose something like one-quarter of its rateable value. That will mean, for the ordinary ratepayer who has not had his rates reduced, that to expend the same amount of money as to-day, a 4d. rate will be necessary instead of a 3d. rate; and this will be the case for all expenditure whether it arises from expenditure on health services or other services. It will affect also expenditure outside the scheme.
The Government have published innumerable figures, all of them of a hypothetical character, none of them worth anything at all, and the right hon. Gentleman has had to apologise for them. I do not blame him, because they are the best figures he could give in the circumstances. In the nature of things the ultimate financial effect of the scheme lies in the future, and he cannot calculate it now.
We have had masses of these figures showing the gains which were coming to county authorities. Whether those gains will accrue or not nobody knows; nobody knows whether they will accrue within the scheme. I am going to suggest that they will not; and for this reason. If you take the areas which are losing most in rateable value, the industrial areas, you have there just those areas where local expenditure is higher than elsewhere; at any rate, the social needs are more pressing than they are elsewhere. In a county like Durham,
with its large industrial population, with its need for schools and all forms of public provision, the expenditure is bound to be more considerable than in more fortunately circumstanced areas, and yet this area is one which is going to lose more than many other county areas because of the mining industry and other enterprises situated there. It loses 25 per cent. of its rateable value. It is going to have an increase of its rate poundage by one-third for all expenditure in the future. To raise £50,000 in the County of Durham in the future will obviously need a higher rate than is necessary to-day for every item of expenditure, whether it is for roads or health services, or for services outside the scheme, or for services helped by State grants or for services which do not get one penny of State grant. The money will have to be raised at the cost of extra rate poundage.
What we want to be assured about is that the alleged gains under the scheme and the guaranteed profits under the scheme will be sufficient to protect county authorities from an actual increase in rate poundage. I am not saying that they need spend any more money, but if a county spends the same amount of money as it does now, I do not see that the guarantee is going to ensure it against an actual increase in the amount of rate poundage. That is what the ordinary householder and the ordinary un-derated taxpayer has to consider. It would be useful if we could have an assurance that the gains per head of population, the alleged gains, are going to be sufficient to cover this diminished rateable value for expenditure inside the scheme and also the diminishaed rateable value for expenditure outside the scheme. Many local authorities are under the impression that they are going to be guaranteed against an increase of rates. The Minister of Health has never said that.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Rates due to the scheme.

Mr. GREENWOOD: That is the whole snag in this Bill. That is where, quite unwittingly, the public of this country are being misled, and that is what I am trying to point out. I am going to say this further, that even within the scheme we have no certainty that rates
are not going to be increased. Certainly no statement has ever been made to the effect that rates are going to be stabilised, although the impression one would gather from the newspapers and the speeches of hon. Members opposite outside this House is that there is something in this scheme which is going to stabilise the rate level. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the Minister of Health, to do him justice, has never suggested any such thing. But the inference has been there. What is specially important for many local authorities is this; that the guarantee should work in such a way that the whole expenditure should not be borne on the increased rate poundage. There is nothing in this scheme which secures that this will take place. What will happen is this. Suppose you have a local authority, a large county council, spending about £100,000 a year on education; its rateable value is diminished by a quarter. In that case the £100,000 is going to entail a higher rate upon the ordinary ratepayers of the county and the guarantee is going to be quite ineffective to deal with that problem at all.
We cannot argue, on the general figures, the gains and losses because they are hypothetical, but my own view is that where there are alleged gains within the scheme those gains are going to disappear into the air when the full expenditure of a county authority is taken into account. The expenditure of a county authority outside the scheme is as important as its expenditure inside the scheme and this has been recognised by the Minister of Health. He has said: "rates are £150,000,000; I am going to give you 25 per cent. of that this year and to ensure you 25 per cent. of that amount always." He has recognised the total expenditure of local authorities outside the scheme as well as inside the scheme. And local authorities must clearly have regard to that. This guarantee in itself is nothing. Even if it is likely to bevreal it is only in a minority of cases that it is likely to be effective. How large is it? It is a guarantee of a 2d. rate; that is to say, if they do not gain the Government will at least ensure them a gain equivalent to a 2d. rate on that expenditure within the scheme. If the Government believed that most counties were going to get a
substantial gain they could have afforded to have given a much higher guarantee than a 2d. rate. This guarantee is the measure of what they believe a county authority is going to get out of the scheme.
If it is argued that most local authorities are going to get substantial gains from the scheme then clearly the Government ought to be in a position to put all county authorities in the same position and they would have submitted a guarantee which in itself which be comparable with the gains which the county authorities were going to make. The sum of 1s. per head is the measure of what the Government thinks local authorities are likely to get out of the scheme. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to deal with this particular question. I have been wanting to raise the question of expenditure within the scheme for a long time past and I want it to be made quite clear to the House and the country that this so-called guarantee in respect of rates only applies to expenditure which can be brought within the scheme. It does not apply to any expenditure outside the scheme, such as education, and it does not necessarily mean that the guarantee will be effective, because within the scheme rate poundage is going to be affected through the reduced rateable value, which will be the greatest in those areas that need local services most.

Mr. MORRIS: It has already been pointed out that this scheme falls into two parts. There are the percentage grants and the grants within the scheme itself. It must be remembered that the losses which will fall ON some areas will not only affect industrial areas, but agricultural areas as well. Take a county which is almost entirely agricultural, but where there is one substantial urban town in one corner of it. That is the case in my own division. I have one university town with a fair population, but the whole of the remaining area is agricultural. Under the Bill, as far as agricultural land and buildings are concerned, that area, will be entirely de-rated. Obviously, that will add to the burden of urban ratepayers. In considering this Amendment we have to take into account the standard sum. All calculations and
guarantees are to be based on the standard sum, which is defined as:
The amount of the loss on account of rates and grants of that county.
That is, the loss on account of rates and grants provided for by the Bill. In the case of agricultural authorities it becomes perfectly clear that all the losses in respect of the Act of 1896 and all the losses in respect of agricultural buildings are not provided for at all by the guarantee and will not be affected by it, and that sum therefore will fall all the heavier on the area if the expenditure outside the scheme is increased. It will add to the burden of the losses on agricultural buildings and land within the county and will fall on a smaller number of ratepayers. The formula does not touch the position in agricultural areas at all unless the Government amend the Bill, and I hope the Minister will amend it, and deal with the losses under the Act of 1896 and the losses on agricultural buildings.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. COVE: Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies, I would like to refer to a point which I raised last night. It has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood). It has already been said that this guarantee does not apply to services outside the scheme. As a matter of fact the operation of the scheme is such that, as the guarantee does not apply to a service like education, which is outside the scheme, the effect will be to cause a great increase in the rate poundage in the case of that particular service. Last night I gave the particular case of Glamorganshire. There the scheme has been subject to very careful examination on the figures of the year 1926–27. I find that there the operation of the scheme is such that the education rate will be raised by a sum of about 1s. 10d. in the £. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether that statement is not correct. Will he tell us whether it is true to say that the guarantee, as we assert, does not cover a special service like the education service, and that the education service will be strictly limited by the present Board of Education grants?
The position is 6uch that it is quite possible even to have a general reduction of rates for other services, whereas
the particular services of education and the police, for instance, not being covered by the guarantee, will call for a drastic raising of the rate poundage in order that those services may be carried on. It must be remembered that the rate poundage will not only be raised by any new and additional burden on account of education, by any new duties imposed by any Act of Parliament, but will be raised automatically by the natural development of the existing service. A scheme such as this, even from that point of view alone, can be truthfully described as a scheme which gives a fictitious guarantee to the ratepayer. The guarantee has no relationship at all to the contribution of individual ratepayers throughout the county. If the guarantee were to apply to individual ratepayers, it is quite obvious that the flat rate distribution to the urban district and rural district councils would have to be amended. That fact alone destroys the guarantee as a substantial guarantee to the individual ratepayer.
Then I think we can look at it from another angle. It is all very well to-come along and say that the Government guarantee the ratepayers in the county a shilling, but what about the losses that they will have sustained? As a matter of fact, if one examines the scheme as a whole, it will be found that the existing financial arrangements would have benefited the ratepayers throughout the area by a sum of £22,000,000 more in five years than this scheme provides. I find, for instance, that you are to take away the sum of £21,000,000 in grant. You are going to take away a sum of £26,000,000 in rates that are now accruing to the authorities up and down the country. In place of the £47,000,000 you are going to give a new sum of money, over a period of five years, of about £25,000,000. Therefore, taking the country as a whole, it stands to lose no less than £22,000,000. Again the guarantee under these circumstances is an unreal one. What I am saying is quite correct. You are taking away the present grant income, which is an expanding income. You are taking away the present rate income, up to £24,000,000, which is an expanding income; and you are subsituting for that a fixed block grant with this fictitious guarantee, which is no guarantee under the circumstances.
The relevant and pertinent thing that we have to remember is that the guarantee applies only within the scheme, and that it has nothing to do with expenditure outside the scheme. Outside the scheme you have the tremendous expenditure on education and the high expenditure on police. Those millions are entirely outside the scope of this guarantee. Then what is its worth, especially when you remember that when the scheme comes into operation these services outside the guarantee will have to be continued on a rate value which has been restricted by the de-rating of industry and of agriculture? I see that the President of the Board of Education is present. I would like to tell him that there is great anxiety about the service for which he is particularly responsible. Education authorities are exceedingly anxious about education, as he ought to know from the expression in their official organs. Is it intended—I believe it is intended—that the harassed ratepayers, so far as education is concerned, shall be the missionaries for drastic economies in education?
The whole scheme, so far as these services outside the guarantee are concerned will mean rates leaping up immediately and drastically. We shall find that the result of the scheme will be to raise the anger of the ratepayers against social services such as education. The guarantee therefore is worthless. The financial scheme as a whole is a snare and a delusion. The authorities will not benefit. Increasing social expenditure will be increasingly borne by a few ratepayers, the householders and shopkeepers throughout the country. Therefore I shall oppose the scheme for all I am worth, knowing that it will involve drastic economies in education, unless we can turn this Government out and substitute a better scheme for that which is before us.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) has repeated certain remarks which he made last night. I was not present then, but I have read the report of his speech. I will not deal with the general trend of the criticism on this Amendment, but I should like to deal very briefly with the educational point. I am much obliged to the hon. Member for telling me that there is grave anxiety
among local education authorities. I think I know exactly what the feeling among them is. Two days ago I had a conference with the Local Authorities Committee on Grants, representing all types of local education authorities, and I found no difficulty, in three-quarters of an hour of discussion, in removing all misunderstanding, and I think practically all apprehension on the subject. No member of that Committee indulged in the kind of remark that the hon. Member for Wellingborough has indulged in to-day. He will forgive me if I say that I really think he has been indulging in a piece of almost deliberate mystification. There are two quite simple points that the hon. Member raised, so far as education is concerned. One is the fact—this is the point stripped of all mystification—that the Government grant under this Bill, while it is a grant which covers the loss of rates on all services, education just as much as any other service, is paid into the general county account, and therefore it goes in relief of the general county rate—

Mr. COVE: That is what I said.

Lord E. PERCY: That is one thing. Therefore the general county rate will appear to be greatly reduced while the education rate may be higher in poundage than it is now.

Mr. COVE: That is what I said.

Lord E. PERCY: Then the hon. Member's point, which he thought justified him in making all these attacks about the Government stabilising expenditure on education and arresting educational development and so on, comes down to this—that while the ratepayer will have to pay, say in Glamorganshire, 5s. or 6s. in the £ less rates than in 1926–27, and while the amount of rates that he would pay on the general county rate will be more than 5s. or 6s. less, as against that he may see his nominal poundage on the education rate go up a little, say by 1s. 10d. So that he still remains a net gainer of 5s. or more under this Bill. That is the fact. Therefore, the only point that the hon. Member has got is this: that this grant while it is an adequate compensation, is paid into a particular local account, and therefore he thinks that the local ratepayer, being a very stupid person, will say, "Oh, look! The general county rate has
gone down by 5s., 6s., 7s. in the £. but the education rate has gone up by 1s. 10d. in the £. How extravagant the Education Committee must be—

Mr. COVE: That is your unbalanced way of putting it.

Lord E. PERCY: They will then say: "We must immediately start trying to cut down educational expenditure." That is the point. I do not think that the ratepayers are quite as stupid as that. Therefore I do not think the point has great force. But still it is a point, and I recognise that. for what it is worth, it ought to be dealt with. What I told the local authorities the other day was that that point, I thought, could be dealt with in the form of the rate demand note. The Minister of Health has to prescribe a form of rate demand note. It would be perfectly easy to devise a form of demand note which would show the ratepayers what are the facts of the case, and forestall any possible ill-informed and misinformed criticism as to the cost of education.
The other point is that a certain number of Part III authorities, being non-county boroughs or urban districts, will not get the guarantee of the extra shilling, but will get only the guarantee of the actual amount of their losses. Rhondda is not amongst them; it has been unable to undertake any urgent educational work for years past, and the effect of this Bill will be for the first time to put the Rhondda in the position, if it wishes, to spend a little extra on education. That is the opinion of the Rhondda education authority, as the hon. Member knows perfectly well. A certain number of Part III authorities will probably be in that position.
It is impossible to give accurate figures at present as to what the position of those authorities will be, but, on that, I told the local authorities, and I repeat it now, that if it is found that some of these Part III authorities, owing to the reduction in their rateable value are in a real difficulty in meeting the needs of the education service in their areas, then the Board of Education will certainly have to consider what variations or amendments can be made in the percentage grant to meet the needs of those
localities. Under the system of percentage grants for education, the Board has full power under Statute to vary the formula in order to meet the needs of different areas as they arise, and the Board of Education will certainly take that situation into consideration when it arises. But all these wild prognostications as to what will be the position of particular Part III authorities are based on pure guesswork. None of the figures which have been given about particular Part III authorities has any solid foundation, and it is useless to guess on this subject at present.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: A certain amount of mystery has attached to the Debates on the finances of this proposal. We are getting a great deal of fun out of the discussions but not much information. I was exceedingly glad to hear the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) put the main central difficulty in such a plain, blunt way. During an earlier stage of these discussions I gave the Parliamentary Secretary the example of my own constituency in order that he might try to formulate a specific answer in place of the very vague general principles which we have been discussing now for several weeks. I have in my constituency 13 urban district councils and two rural district councils and in regard to them I would like an answer to the question which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has put to the right hon. Gentleman.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): On a point of Order. As the Committee are aware, I do not wish to curtail discussion, but I would point out to the Chair and to the Committee that this Amendment simply deals with the guarantee to counties. If we are to have a general financial discussion so be it, but I submit that we are now travelling rather a long way from the Amendment.

Mr. E. BROWN: Surely we cannot discuss the general financial guarantee to the county without recognising its effects on the districts inside the county. It is impossible to disentangle the discussion on the one question from all the other consideration involved. Seeing that the Committee have had no chance of a general financial discussion we ought
to be able, on a proposition of this kind affecting the whole finance of the scheme, to discuss all the points at issue.

Sir K. WOOD: I must point out, first, that the hon. Gentleman himself is now seeking for a general financial discussion and, secondly, that he is seeking to bring into this discussion the question of county districts. That as he knows is dealt with in a Clause which I hope we shall reach shortly. All the observations which the hon. Gentleman himself has been making deal entirely with the county districts and have nothing to do with this Amendment.

Mr. BROWN: I must ask the Parliamentary Secretary to refresh his memory, and he will find that I quoted figures given by the Minister. The first set of figures dealt with counties—Durham and Surrey—and with county boroughs. The point at issue as regards the effect on the yield of a penny rate is the same, whether it is a county district or a county which is concerned. The fact of the matter is that neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary have ever given Parliament or the country a clear statement and they have no adequate tables of figures with which to back up their statements.

Mr. COVE: May I submit that the President of the Board of Education in his reply dealt with Part III authorities? We have something further to say about that matter which is of great interest, and since the Noble Lord roamed over the whole field, is it not right that we also should have the privilege of roaming over the whole field?

Mr. MORRIS: It is very difficult to omit these matters from consideration altogether in discussing this Amendment which really deals with the question of the guarantee and the standard sum. There is the further difficulty that we are discussing the operation of this Amendment very largely in the dark. I have myself as the Parliamentary Secretary knows put down questions asking as to the effect of this proposal in my own Division and I have not yet had a reply. Therefore I am compelled to discuss this matter in the dark, and I, certainly,
should like some information in regard to the financial part of the proposals.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which has been moved by the Minister as I understand it, is intended to provide that, so far as counties are concerned, there should not be a loss due to the introduction of the scheme proposed in the Bill. I think it is relevant to the argument as to whether or not a loss will arise, to deal to some extent with the effect of de-rating in a particular case as showing a possible loss and indeed it is only in that way that we can say whether or not the new scheme does in fact involve a loss. It would not be in order on this Clause to argue the question of county boroughs because that is dealt with separately; but I do not think I ought to prevent some discussion on that matter because it seems to me that it is impossible otherwise to argue whether or not this proposed Amendment carries out the intentions of the Government.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I am grateful to you, Captain Bourne, for your ruling. If the Parliamentary Secretary looks at pages 51 and 54 of the White Paper he will get the ease to which I would draw his attention. There he will find an analysis showing how the proposals of the Government would have affected the administrative county of Yorkshire prior to the further Amendment which has been moved this afternoon. I have taken the trouble to go in some detail into the figures concerning the areas which come within my constituency in order to make the case a little simpler for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration. In my constituency there are 13 urban district councils and two rural district councils. Comparing the poundage rates for 1926–27 with the estimated poundage under the scheme, before the payment of the supplementary Exchequer grant, and then taking the figures in the third column set out in the White Paper, I find that my local authorities would be in rather a bad way as a result of the operation of the scheme. In the column showing the estimated poundage rate under the scheme, before the payment of the supplementary Exchequer grant I find that these 15 local authorities are going to lose something like 4s. 9d. in the £ taken collectively and some of them will lose
as much as 2s. It is true that when the supplementary Exchequer grant is paid there is a rough balancing out of these losses.
I asked the Parliamentary Secretary before the Amendment was moved would he undertake to say that these 15 local authorities would be just as well off, from the point of view of rates, after the Act came into operation as before? The right hon. Gentleman did not give me an answer and these local authorities are still pestering me just as they are pestering him with the same question. It is the question which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) has put in regard to the country as a whole. What is to be the incidence of these financial proposals upon particular local authorities in counties? That is the real point at issue. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to answer that question. I think it will be of the greatest possible value for the purposes of the next General Election if the Parliamentary Secretary will now say, "Standing at this Box, after all this mystery talk, I hereby declare that these 15 local authorities as representing the country can be assured in advance that their rating position will not be one penny the worse over the next 19 years, after this Amendment." I cannot remember that once in the last four years the Parliamentary Secretary has given a plain, straight answer to a plain question. I want the right hon. Gentleman to redeem his character this afternoon and put an end to this mystery by giving us a plain answer.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: It is desirable that some words should be said from the back benches on this side in reference to the Amendment because I think it must be obvious that it is of the highest possible significance. No one could have listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) or the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) without seeing that questions which are exercising the country as a whole, without distinction of party, are being raised by the Amendment. I am not going to enter upon the point at issue between the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) and the President of the Board of Education. I need hardly say that I do not desire to
associate myself with the violent language of the hon. Member for. Wellingborough. I am not going to talk about snares and delusions in connection with this Amendment. But I wish to associate myself with the very moderate and closely reasoned speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I am willing to assume and I do assume that there will be an explicit answer to that speech from the Parliamentary Secretary. I only wish to say that anxiety in regard to the questions which have been raised in this Debate is not confined to Members on the other side. I know from personal experience that these questions are arousing considerable anxiety among local authorities in all parts of the country. I am a cordial supporter of this Bill and on that account I hope that the temperate, closely-reasoned speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne will receive from the Parliamentary Secretary an unqualified and explicit reply.

Mr. TOMLINSON: I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why the general Exchequer grant is to be distributed to the counties and county boroughs on the basis of weighted population and distributed within the counties on the basis of actual population.

Sir K. WOOD: If I can only earn the commendations of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood), I shall indeed feel very grateful, and think that I have not spent this day in vain. May I, for a moment, before dealing with some of the points that have been put to me, recall to the attention of the Committee this Clause and this Amendment, because, after all, they are our first consideration. The Clause with which we are now dealing is one which provides for the payment of additional Exchequer grants; in the case of those counties where the county apportionment falls short of a certain amount, and such counties will, of course, be in the minority. I may at once tell the Committee that, so far as this particular Clause and this Amendment are concerned, they affect only seven counties out of 62. That, I think, is some tribute to the financial arrangements of the rest of the Bill.

Mr. E. BROWN: May I ask—

Sir K. WOOD: No.

Mr. BROWN: I wanted to—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Parliamentary Secretary is in possession.

Sir K. WOOD: I have listened with courtesy and silence to the hon. Member.

Mr. BROWN: You often put a question yourself.

Sir K. WOOD: I will give way in a minute, but I want to pursue this matter, because I think it is worth while to emphasise that in fact this Amendment and this Clause affect only seven counties out of 62. When the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), who has now left the Chamber, says there is anxiety up and down the country, I am afraid that he evidently does not know that at any rate, so far as the vast majority of counties are concerned, there is to be no question at all as to giving them any additional contribution or guarantee under this scheme, and so far as the counties in question are concerned, there are only seven out of 62 affected. That is my first point which I think is very relevant having regard to the statements that have been made concerning the great anxiety of many counties in this connection.
In our original proposals, as many hon. Members know, we undertook to give a guarantee for the first five years of a minimum gain of one shilling per head of population. The object of this Amendment this afternoon is to complete the agreement which we have made with the representative associations of local authorities, who have, as hon. Members have repeatedly told us in the course of these debates, given great consideration to this matter in the light of expert advice. Following my right hon. Friend's negotiations with them we have now come to a certain agreement, and that portion of the agreement which affects the guarantee to counties is embodied in my right hon. Friend's Amendment. Instead of the guarantee of the shilling being only for a limited period as in our first proposals, that guarantee is now going to be given for all time.
Secondly, it, was pointed out to us by the local authorities that that shilling would in certain events not fully meet their case, even if it was given. It might not secure any contribution from any further new money added to the general
Exchequer contribution for future grant periods. Therefore, in order to meet that further point, we have embodied in our Amendment an alternative, which is to the advantage of the local authorities, because we say that if this comes on to the Statute Book they shall have whatever is the better for them, either the extra shilling or their fair share, as detailed in the Amendment, of the general Exchequer contribution. That Amendment has been arrived at by agreement with the local authorities concerned, and it translates into legislative form the undertaking which we gave to them when we came to an agreement. My answer to the statements made this afternoon is, first, that this Amendment only affects a very few of the counties, and, secondly, that it is the agreement which we have arrived at with the authorities concerned.
We are now confronted by observations and suggestions by hon. Members opposite, who know better than the local authorities themselves and who say that this arrangement is not a satisfactory one and that all sorts of difficulties and troubles may ensue. The hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) described this as a small amount. Whatever amount had been fixed, that is a criticism which could be offered by any Opposition. Secondly, she said that the alternative, that portion which would entitle the councils in certain events to get some share of the new money, is not likely to be of any use at all. The answer to that is that, if that were so, why did the authorities ask for it and why are they in agreement with it? As a matter of fact, that was one of the important points that was advanced to us by the local authorities in connection with their guarantee under this Bill. Therefore, for anyone to get up, without any knowledge, and say that this is worth nothing is directly opposite to what the local authorities themselves desired and asked for.
Then I am confronted with a series of questions as to what will be the ultimate result of these guarantees, and I am invited to give answers in regard to county districts and county boroughs in individual cases, not only as to what would be the result of this guarantee, but as to what would be the result of the whole scheme. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne asked if I would give a
guarantee that under all circumstances rates would not go up. That is really what it came to. Who would possibly give a guarantee of that kind? Who would guarantee that Poplar's rates would not go up? Why, even the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) would not give that guarantee, careful as he is about the finances of the municipalities. Obviously, no one could give a guarantee of that kind, but what we Gave done, both in the White Paper and in the speeches of my right hon. Friend, is to give the figures and the calculations, based on the best advice and data we have had at our disposal, and for the years we have mentioned, showing what we consider, subject to the conditions set out in the White Paper, will be the results of this scheme. I have been told this afternoon that Durham would be in a dreadful position as a result of this scheme.

Mr. E. BROWN: Nobody said anything of the kind.

Sir K. WOOD: I happen to have the figures on the basis—

Mr. BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene now? I expressly said two things about Durham. I gave the figures for loss of rates which he gave me, and then I went on to say that it was true that by the working of the scheme Durham would also gain. My point was not that at all. The excess, of course, according to the formula is greater than the loss of rates in Durham. The point is that when all this sum is distributed in Durham there still remains the point which the right hon. Gentleman will not meet, namely, that upon the distribution of this sum depends what the other authorities inside the county will get. We can get no figures about that, and if they lose heavily and increase their services they are in jeopardy.

Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. Member has made a very good intervention on that point. Let me now make my observations and say, in the first place, if I am permitted to do so, that as far as the districts within a county are concerned not only in Durham but in other counties under the Amendments which we shall be discussing later, which are really more appropriate to this matter,
we shall be guaranteeing to every district within a county as a result of this scheme—obviously we cannot go further than that—that for five years no district will lose; and, further, we say this, that the inter-county arrangement, can only proceed for a further period of two years, after which, under another Amendment, there will be a full inquiry into the whole of the operations of that financial scheme in conjunction with the local authorities.
Therefore, my broad reply is this, that whatever anxieties, difficulties, or apprehensions you may have as to the working of any new scheme, which you must naturally have when you are making big alterations of this kind in local government the fact is that we have met the local authorities by saying that at any rate—I am not now using technical language—so far as counties are concerned they have got this guarantee, as far as county boroughs are concerned they have their guarantee, and as far as the districts within a county are concerned, they have the guarantee against loss for the first five years. Secondly, even the inter-county arrangements will continue only for a further period of two years, when there will be a general inquiry into the whole of the operation of the scheme in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. As the local authorities are in agreement with us on the matter, that really gives the greatest assurance that we can have in making an alteration of this kind in the scheme. I will not state the advantages that will follow—hon. Gentlemen know that for themselves—but I would like to give concrete figures, not as regards apprehensions or fears, but on the basis that was presented in the White Paper, and subject to all the reservations made in the White Paper. When I hear people saying that as a result of this scheme rates are going up and local authorities will be bankrupt, and suggestions of that kind, I reply that that is not what the local authorities are saying. Hon. Gentlemen may say that local authorities nave forced us into this arrangement, but, at any rate, this is the agreement that has been arrived at. Take a county like Durham. It is only fair to refer in a case like that to the very considerable relief which industry will receive— £1,100,000 a year.

Mr. GREENWOOD: That is not the actual relief to the coal industry?

Sir K. WOOD: No, to the administrative county, and in respect of the relief to the productive industries. I am entitled to bring that forward as the first measure of relief to the county in view of the statements which have been made this afternoon. Hon. Members may argue, and it will be for the country to decide, whether in fact that portion of the relief is good for Durham or not. That is a matter which, obviously, the electorate can decide for themselves. When you come to the relief of the ordinary ratepayers of Durham, in the case of the administrative county, on the same basis as I have indicated, the relief will be equivalent to a sum of £236,000 a year. I say again that that is not an inconsiderable sum. As a matter of fact, in regard to the County of Durham, there is a matter which has not been mentioned in these debates, and it ought to be mentioned. There is a considerable relief in addition which Durham will be receiving through our proposals for dealing with what we call the Goschen loans.
Therefore, if you take all these things together, I am not surprised that the local authorities should have come to an agreement in this matter, and, as a first consequence, we are moving this Amendment. When I hear hasty and ill-considered suggestions that large sums of money of this kind should be regarded as of no assistance, and that the local authorities are objecting, I must confess that I cannot understand it. Take a matter about which I thought everyone was in agreement, that is, the fact that the national Exchequer ought to bear a. larger share of the total burden. Again, in relation to Durham, the contribution from the national Exchequer is raised from 38 per cent. to 60 per cent. Figures like that, which have authority behind them, should do away with the fears and apprehensions that have been mentioned. At any rate, as far as this Amendment is concerned, it will be very foolish for the Government to deviate from it, inasmuch as they have now come to an agreement with the local authorities. I commend it to the Committee as meeting the desires and wishes of the local authorities, and because I believe that it will give added strength and added guarantees to the local authorities, and
will mitigate those difficulties and doubts which have naturally arisen in connection with an important and far-reaching scheme of this kind.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Is not the right hon. Gentleman going to make an attempt to reply to the speech which I made? Surely we are entitled to a reply. If the right hon. Gentleman is not going to reply, I must proceed to put my point again. I am glad that the President of the Board of Education is present, because he has confirmed what I said. I do not quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) that we have learnt nothing. We have learnt a great deal, and valuable admissions have been made this afternoon, and misconceptions have been removed; but we have not had a reply to the part of the case that I made, and, as far as I am concerned, we shall not leave this question until we have had a reply. The President of the Board of Education made the admission that there would be a higher rate poundage for education. That is precisely what I said. He altered it later and called it a nominal rate poundage, but he knows that there is no such thing. A rate poundage is a rate poundage. Then he proceeded to argue that Glamorgan will gain 5s. or 6s. in the £, and that, although it will lose 2s. because the education rate will go up that amount, the net gain will be 4s.

Lord E. PERCY: I did not say that. I took a particular district as being shown in the White Paper as gaining 6s. in the £ We will assume that that calculation is correct, and that the calculation of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) that the education rate is going up by 1s. 10d. is correct. Ignore for a moment that that 6s. gain is made up of various rural district council rates as well as the county rates, and take the county rate only. The effect would be simply that the general county rate would be shown as going down not by 6s. but by 7s. 10d., the net gain remaining precisely what it is in the White Paper, 6s.

Mr. COVE: The Minister of Education has accepted my figure of 1s. 10d.

Lord E. PERCY: For the purposes of argument.

Mr. COVE: If the Noble Lord accepts that figure for the purposes of argument, he must accept the other figure for the purposes of argument, that is, that the gain to the general county rate is not 4s., 5B., or 6s., hut exactly 1s. 10¼d. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts one figure he must accept the other figure worked on the 1926–1927 basis.

Mr. GREENWOOD: What the Noble Lord did convey was that in any area you like there will be a reduction of rates as the result of this scheme, that there will be an increase of the education rate, and that, even though it were true that the education rate increased, there would still be a net gain to the ratepayers. That was the argument used by the President of the Board of Education.

Lord E. PERCY: All I am anxious to get clear is that when the White Paper shows a gain for a particular area, that gain is an actual net gain after taking into account any increase in the rates, education or police, which are outside the general county rate, and that, therefore, all this talk about the education rate going up does not affect the truth of the statement in the White Paper that in such and such an area the net gain will be a certain amount in the £.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I will put it more simply. Let us assume that a county council is spending £100,000 on education this year. Let us assume that it will spend precisely that sum next year and in succeeding years. The education rate will increase because, as a result of de-rating, in no county of the country will a penny rate bring in what it did before. Is that or is that not right?

Lord E. PERCY: Even that is not right, because the hon. Member has left out of calculation the fact that the Board's grant is partly based upon a calculation of the yield of a sevenpenny rate. There are cases where the reduction in the assessable value, and the consequent increase in the poundage of the education rate, may be off-set by the fact that the yield of a sevenpenny rate is deducted from the Board's grant, and that that deduction will be smaller in future than it has been in the past. That must be taken into account.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The sevenpenny rate calculation is relatively unimportant
to-day, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from this general truth, that if you de-rate hereditaments in a county area, as a result of this scheme a penny rate will not bring in as much as it would otherwise. I think most hon. Members accept that. Then it does mean that with an equal expenditure each year the education rate is going to rise.

Lord E. PERCY: Why speak of the education rate only?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am coming to the other point—that what applies to education applies with even more force to the police. If you spend the same amount of money next year as you have spent in the standard year, the rate for the police is going to be higher, because of the elementary fact that each penny of rate will not then bring in what it used to bring in. I wish I could get this into the minds of hon. Members. I come now to the question of roads, which are partly inside and partly outside the scheme. Those roads may involve exactly the same expenditure in future years, but the rate poundage to meet the cost will be higher than it is this year. And that will be so whether the expenditure is, within or outside the scheme. I wish to know whether calculations have been made—even within the scheme—and have taken into account the inevitable increase in rate poundage as a result of de-rating? I should then like to ask whether the Government have ever made any attempt to make it clear that their scheme does not protect local authorities as regards any item of expenditure except certain of the health services and certain of the road services? They never have made it clear.
Is it not fair to say that the guarantee embodied in this Amendment is no guarantee at all? The right hon. Gentleman says: "Of course it is, within the scheme," but as there is pretty well as much expenditure outside the scheme as inside the scheme, and as the important thing to the ratepayers is the rate per pound which they have to pay, I press for some answer to my original question. Even within the scheme, is it not a fact that rates may go up, and is it not almost certain, taking the aggregate expenditure of local authorities, including the expenditure outside the scheme, that even though that expenditure
may not have increased the rate poundage will increase, and the rank and file of ratepayers will be worse off? That is a perfectly fair question, and it is really the question which the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) wants answered. It is the question to which we have had no answer from the Parliamentary Secretary. He says that this Amendment affects only seven out of 62 counties. Even if it did affect only seven out of 62 counties, that is one-ninth of the counties—an important share. Then he said: "We have had an agreement. We have met the local authorities and we have come to an agreement." It is rather like the agreement which is reached between the highwayman and the man on the road. The highwayman says "Your money or your life," and the money is passed over. This agreement is of precisely the same kind.
The Parliamentary Secretary cannot say that local authorities are satisfied with this scheme. Their attitude is not one of gratitude to the Government. They have accepted this compromise because they had to, but it is not one with which they are satisfied. For the right hon. Gentleman to say: "We have reached an agreement with the local authorities"—as if that ended all discussion—is equivalent to running away from the real argument. Then he referred to Poplar. Poplar has always been a word which has enabled hon. Members opposite to cloud discussion. Nobody asked whether Poplar's rates are going to be raised. I have not even raised the question of commitments entered into with State departments before this scheme came into operation. I have only asked whether it is not the fact that. if expenditure remains stable, there will be an increase in the rate poundage, and that in most cases it will swallow up the advantages of the scheme, and certainly the guarantee?
I put this further point to show how useless is the guarantee, certainly within the next three years. From now onwards, local authorities will be very reluctant to enter into commitments with Government Departments. Already some have entered into commitments, but have not incurred any great expenditure upon them. The main expenditure will not come into the standard year. Their commitments will only begin to operate next
year and the year after. How is the guarantee going to meet a situation like that? It will not do anything. The whole of that new expenditure, to which they are committed by agreements, and for which all the necessary arrangements have been made, will fall upon local rates. In the next three years there will be a substantial number of cases of that kind up and down the country. This miserable guarantee of 1s. per head will not meet it. It is all very well to say that 55 out of 62 counties gain. So the figures say; but nobody believes there is any basis for the figures. They are the best the Government can do; it may be more will gain, and it may be that many of the gains will come down. The new commitments of local authorities may wash out all advantage to be derived from the scheme itself and from the guarantee.
The right hon. Gentleman said that Durham county would benefit to the extent of £1,100,000 a year. That is perfectly true; but it is only another way of saying that Durham County Council loses £1,100,000 worth of rateable value every year, which is a quarter of its rateable value. The right hon. Gentleman says that the relief to the county is going to be £236,000 a year, but that does not deal with the situation. A 4d. rate will be necessary in Durham wherever a 3d. rate will do now. Will the right hon. Gentleman contradict that? Is it or is it not true that in the future Durham County Council will have to raise a 4d. rate where a 3d. rate will do now? We want an answer to that. Multiply that 3d. to 4d. ratio by the rates which are levied in that county, and what becomes of your £236,000? What becomes of that gift of the Government? It is swallowed up. Only one-quarter of that excess poundage will be paid by industrialists, but the whole of it will have to be paid by householders. What we want to know is: Does this scheme offer to the householder, the shopkeeper, the professional man, the trader, all people who have not been de-rated, any guarantee whatever of a reduction of rates on the present basis of expenditure? Is it not the case, whatever the figures which have been produced may show, that this diminution in rateable value is going to lead to an increase in rate poundage, which means an increase in the rate burden on the ordinary ratepayer? I ask for an answer to that question.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I have listened to every word of this discussion, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott). There is one point upon which a definite answer is required. It certainly is a point on which I want an answer. I think I can boil down the point which the Opposition have been trying to put into these words. We have it from the Minister and from the Parliamentary Secretary that this guarantee is such that no county will lose as a result of the scheme. I think what we want to know is what is meant by "as a result of the scheme." Does it mean merely that the guarantee is to cover the services which come within the ambit of the Bill, or when it is said that the counties are not going to lose as a result of the scheme, does it mean that, as the President of the Board of Education has hinted, account has been taken of all services, whether within the ambit of the Bill or without?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, certainly.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Does that mean that the guarantee now given is that in spite of the loss of rateable value, on which education, police and other rates have got to be raised, there will be no loss to the counties either on the services mentioned in the Bill—Poor Law and the rest of them—or on the other services—the education and police services?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to that is, yes, on the standard year.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman has just repeated a statement which he made several times during his speech. The net result of his reply is that no guarantees at all are given against an increase as the result of the passing of this Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary himself is unwilling to reply to the question which has been put to him, because there is in it an element of uncertainty, but surely the safest guide to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is to realise that when the right hon. Gentleman referred to the effect of the de-rating proposals in Durham he was skating on very thin ice, and he refused to face the facts which have been put before him. The Parliamentary Secretary has stated on numerous occasions that under the existing scheme, with all the reservations laid down in the various
publications from the Ministry of Health, he does not think that the local authorities are likely to suffer. Command Paper 3227 gives at the commencement certain figures showing sound reasons why no notice should be taken of all the estimates which have been provided.
We have already been told that little or no reliability can be placed upon the estimates which have been given, and yet the Parliamentary Secretary comes no nearer to answering the plain question whether local authorities are likely to lose or gain under the de-rating proposals than merely telling the Committee that under this scheme, with all the reservations which have been laid down, he does not think that the local authorities are going to lose. There is no guarantee given under the proposed scheme providing that local authorities are not going to lose. The President of the Board of Education spoke of the net gain which is to be received by various counties, but if the right hon. Gentleman accepts that statement, then he must accept the alternative that certain counties are going to lose a considerable sum of money. While I think the Parliamentary Secretary made the best possible effort to reply to the discussion during the first seven or eight days of the Committee stage, he failed to satisfy the Committee that the local authorities and the average ratepayers will not lose money even in spite of the new ministerial Amendment.
The Parliamentary Secretary has constantly referred to the County of Durham and he has told us that Durham will receive a considerable sum under the Government scheme through de-rating by a reduction of the rates. The right hon. Gentleman told us that Durham would receive £236,000 per annum and he emphasised this fact by referring to the advantages which that county would receive under the Goschen loan. May I refer the Parliamentary Secretary once again to one of the most industrialised counties in the country, that is, the West Riding of Yorkshire, where trade depression is as real as in any other part of the country? There we have the most industrialised county in the country faced with a loss of £227,000 per annum under this Measure. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not give to Members representing certain
parts of the West Riding of Yorkshire some encouragement to believe that the ratepayers in those. areas are not going to lose under the Government scheme?
It is not sufficient constantly to make references to one particular county which may or may not be the recipient of financial gains as the result of the application of this scheme, when other counties are known to be very large losers, even on the figures supplied by the Government, notwithstanding the industrial depression in those counties. I told the Minister of Health yesterday what has been stated so frequently, but which, up to the present, has received no reply, that this very curious result-is obtained inside a scheme which is supposed to be bordering upon the scientific. The result to which I allude is that-one of the most industrialised parts of the country where it is supposed that the need is the greatest will not only receive the least amount of assistance, but will actually lose £227,000 per annum in hard cash. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what guarantees there are for the West Riding of Yorkshire? Unless the right hon. Gentleman gives us some better explanations than he has so far given, we shall be obliged to conclude that the West Riding of Yorkshire and many other counties—certainly the six counties which are allied with Yorkshire—will have no sort of guarantee at all that the rates of the average cottage tenant and other sections of the community are not going to be increased as a result of this scheme. Simply to say that only seven counties out of 63 are referred to in this Amendment, and that this Amendment is intended to safeguard those seven authorities is to make the confession that in the first place, before any sort of guarantees are provided, there is an acknowledgment that the rates in those counties will have to be increased to meet existing services before any improvement can take place in the years to come.
This Amendment has been moved in order to give certain guarantees to those counties, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to give a plain answer, "yes," or "no," as to whether, if this Amendment be not embodied in the Clause, those counties will be safeguarded or not. It seems to me that the shilling per head merely means that the only
guarantee in the future will be that the counties will receive slightly less than their expenditure for 1928 and slightly more than 1928–29. That is not a sufficient guarantee, and I hope if the right hon. Gentleman is going to reply to the statement made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) he will tell us frankly whether or not we are being given a real or a fictitious guarantee.
We have been told that certain authorities are in some doubt as to what the ultimate result of this Bill will be, and we hear that certain changes are going to be made which will remove their anxiety. We want to know, and I think we are entitled to know, first of all, whether the Government recognise the doubts, fears and anxieties of certain local authorities; and we also want to know whether the Government are willing to meet those anxieties and make the necessary changes, so that the guarantee that the President of the Board of Education himself desires to sec established can be given. I hope a definite statement will be made to the effect that any change which is necessary to provide the assurances and guarantees which we are all entitled to see established will be made. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to the case which has been submitted relating to the West Riding of Yorkshire, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not ride off on the Durham case.

Sir K. WOOD: The guarantee is that so long as the expenditure of the standard year remains unchanged, there can be no increase of rates in any area for the first five years of the scheme.

Mr. E. BROWN: I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me when I state that those who have raised this discussion have performed a public service. I do not think that the Ministry of Health have from the beginning appreciated to the full the case put originally by the local authorities. I would like to say now, after having read the latest document issued by the municipal corporations, that while in actual words the Parliamentary Secretary may be correct-in saying that there is agreement, he cannot say that it is a hearty agreement. I could read out a passage from a document which the municipal corporations have issued showing that they are still
dubious as to whether you can logically apply under one and the same formula and one and the same sum of money two entirely different things, namely, the losses of rates originating in the locality and the losses of grants originating in the Treasury. It is because I think the Government have not really given enough attention to this point that I wish to say a few words on this occasion. I agree that the Government Amendment is a valuable one.
I would like to give an illustration. It is the case in which the finances of a particular city on the original ratio worked out that in 1945, at the end of the third quinquennium, they would have lost £4,000, and under the new guarantee they will gain £6,000, or a difference of £10,000 between increasing or decreasing the rates. Nevertheless, the point remains that this guarantee is one that the ratio of the Exchequer grant we are discussing to the total rate-borne and grant-borne expenditure shall not decrease from the basis of the standard year. Everything depends on the standard sum in the standard year. When the Parliamentary Secretary says that only seven counties will lose, he means seven counties on the calculation made in 1927–28, and this is based on the assumption contained in the White Paper.
When the Association of Municipal Corporations first set their accountants to work in regard to the distribution of this money, what did they find? They found that when the full formula is working in 1945, not seven but 22 counties will lose on the standard sum plus the original guarantee. Now we are told that 22 counties have gone down to seven. We think that the Government have not given sufficient attention to the facts when they claim that the County of Durham would gain a sum of £1,108,000 a year by de-rating and that would mean that the assessable value of the County of Durham would be lowered by £1,108,000 a year. In making this calculation, the Government have not paid attention to the distribution of the money, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary has failed to meet the original case put by the great financial authorities connected with large corporations that the effect on the yield of a penny rate in county council divisions and the
areas inside those divisions will differ in every county area. As I understand the guarantee, it is that this Exchequer contribution will be in three parts—a part to make up for the loss of rates in the county, a part to make up for the loss of grants in the county, and a part composed of new money, part of which is to help over the dislocation of the early period, and part to carry out the guarantees. As I understand it, the sum composed of these three figures is to be based on the year 1928–29—that is to say, the present rating year, the figures for which neither we nor the Government have, so we are all working in the dark; and it is much more complicated in England and Wales, because this year we are applying for the first time the new-assessment values of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, will be an increasing sum.
This is not a matter of Poplarism, but of dubiety existing, not merely in my mind, but in the minds of many local administrators in every part of the country. As the ratio works out, what is to happen is this: If the total rate-borne and grant-borne expenditure of the country goes up by £8,000,000 after the first period, 25 per cent. of that will be the extra sum to be borne by the Exchequer, that is to say, £2,000,000. That means that, the increase being £8,000,000, and the guarantee amounting, so far as the national Exchequer is concerned, to £2,000,000, there will remain £6,000,000 of increased expenditure to be met by the local authorities. If the increase is £8,000,000, as it is in England and Wales according to the Government's own memorandum, or £1,200,000 as it is in Scotland, and if in Scotland the Exchequer finds £300,000 and the local authorities £900,000, while in England and Wales, out of £8,000,000, the Treasury only finds £2,000,000 and the local authorities will have to find £6,000,000, that is the whole point that was put by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood), and is the point that I raised about the yield of a penny rate.
I regard this as a serious matter, and I do not think that the Government have faced it as they ought to have faced it. When you give money by way of de-rating, you give it to certain hereditaments.
When you take that money away from those hereditaments, you take it away from the rating authority in whose area the hereditaments are situated. You do not equally take the money, which in Durham amounts to £1,108,000 a year, all over the rating areas of Durham, but you make it a mass sum as coming from the whole country. This is the point that is worrying the smaller local authorities. Since the distribution in the counties, which we are now discussing, is based on this ratio and this standard sum, it will work out unequally in these two ways. As regards applying the grants which originate from the Treasury, it may work out fairly, and in some cases it may work out very well, but to imagine that you can apply logically one and the same formula to moneys originating from the Treasury for the assistance of the rate-borne services of local authorities, and also apply the same formula according to need to make up to the local authorities what they actually lose by the de-rating in their areas, is the whole fallacy.
This guarantee is valuable; it is an advance upon the original scheme in the Bill, and that itself was an advance upon the original White Paper No. 3134; but it does not meet these two crucial points. Firstly, it has no relation as regards the actual ratepayer paying rates to the rates paid; and, secondly, it has no relation to the actual total expenditure of the authorities concerned. I can only repeat that I regard this putting of these two forms of grant under one formula as logically bad, and I believe, as I said earlier, that the areas which are unhappy enough to lose very heavily by de-rating, if they have to incur increased expenditure outside the scheme in the future, will find, as is indeed the case in some agricultural parishes, that their rating basis will almost entirely disappear, because it is well known that there are parishes, where all agricultural land and buildings will be de-rated, which will only be able to raise by a penny rate a sum of £3 or £4 a year. That is the point that is worrying us, and I am sorry to say that the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary has only left me more dubious than I was before the Debate began.

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: The speeches of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) show that they are seriously perturbed about the possibility of any local authorities ever making any loss owing to de-rating or to this Bill. They entirely ignore, to begin with, the justice or injustice of the present distribution of grants, but anyone who studies the figures can see that the present grants per head of population go very largely to the richer and not to the poorer portions of the country. Therefore, from that point of view, some redress is, surely, needed. The hon. Members also ignore the Government guarantee. In the case of the counties, they are not only guaranteed their loss by de-rating, but they are guaranteed for an indefinite period Is. per head over and above every possible loss.

Miss LAWRENCE: No; that is on the standard year.

Mr. PETO: Over and above their loss as compared with the standard year. New services will draw new grants. That has all been provided for in the Bill. It is based on the fourth year of the previous quinquennium. But the hon. Member for the Don Valley raised his old nightmare that, the West Riding of Yorkshire will lose some £200,000 in 17 years, and we have heard the same story with regard to Somerset, which will lose £80,000 in 17 years. But that ignores the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to relieve industry. [Interruption.] If the £24,000,000 which we are going to grant to relieve industry, and the £7,300,000 of new money, or £31,000,000 in all, is not going to be of material benefit to industry, I agree that we shall be very much disappointed in the Bill, but on this side of the House we believe that it will very materially increase the prosperity of both industry and agriculture.
Again, in 17 years time, not only will the £31,000,000 have come into full fruition, reducing unemployment and poor relief, and in that way reducing rates, but who is going to say what the Socialist party will do if they ever get into government? For anyone to be afraid to-day to vote for this Bill because their rates might go up in 1946, would be about as logical as for anyone to jump into the sea for fear that a shower of
rain might wet their coat in 1946. The party opposite are pledged to put up rates, and they know it, but the whole idea of this scheme—[Interruption.] They have said it again and again. We hold that we are going materially to improve industry and agriculture by these enormous grants of money, and that in-doing so we shall be reducing rates. In addition, there is the guarantee of 1s. per head for the counties, and I cannot see how it is possible to be on safer ground. The whole complication of the Bill is due to this very large number of guarantees which have been granted to every possible local authority. The hon. Member for Leith spoke about the Association of Municipal Corporations, but the Association of Municipal Corporations have themselves approved of the Bill, and are satisfied with the guarantees given. Nevertheless, hon. Members opposite, who are pledged to increase rates, have the effrontery to come here and plead for the municipal corporations.

Mr. COVE: I am very glad that what I said at an earlier stage in the deliberations of the Committee has resulted in the President of the Board of Education coming here to give some sort of reply. It is rather remarkable that, on a scheme which it is now admitted, at this late hour, affects education vitally, we have not hitherto had from the Government, and from the President of the Board of Education in particular, any statement that would explain the effects of the scheme upon the education grants. We have had to drag the admission out of him, and even now that information is by no means complete. In the second place, it is, surely, the first time. in the history of the House of Commons, that the President of the Board of Education has in this Chamber actually delighted in the fact that a scheme propounded by the Government will immediately result in increased education rates. I always thought that a Minister of Education would regard with some measure of anxiety any financial scheme proposed by another Department which would have, as he admitted this afternoon would be the case, the direct and immediate effect of raising the education rate. It is quite evident that the Minister of Health is now also the Minister of Education. It is quite clear that the
Minister of Health will be the dictator as far as educational expenditure in the future is concerned.
I will take the case of Glamorganshire as a particular illustration of the point I want to make that, while it might be possible—I will concede that to the Minister—that under this scheme there may be a reduction in the general rates, it is quite clear and definite, and it has been admitted by the Minister himself this afternoon, that, even under those conditions, there might be a serious increase in the education rate. He says that he does not fear that; he says that he does not fear the objection of the ratepayers. I am rather afraid that it is a deliberate policy in order to stir up the ratepayers to see that there shall be increasing economy as far as education is concerned. Let us examine the effect of de-rating. Take a case where the education rate is 3s. in the £, and assume that the loss in rateable value is 20 per cent. In that case a 3s. 9d. rate will be needed to raise the same amount of money. If the loss is 25 per cent., the rate jumps up immediately to 4s., while if it is 30 per cent.—and we have cases of 30 per cent. de-rated—the rate will jump up to 4s. 3½d.; and yet the President of the Board of Education can come here this afternoon and complacently look forward to a state of affairs when the education rates might leap up by shillings in the pound, and yet not be concerned for the educational situation. Let me take again, as I have before, some places in Glamorganshire with regard to which we might have an answer. Barry will lose, on account of de-rating, 33 per cent., or a 1s. 7½d. rate; Port Talbot will lose a 1s. 2d. rate; Pontypridd will lose a 1s. 1¾d. rate. Does this guarantee cover those losses as far as education is concerned?

Lord E. PERCY: Yes.

Mr. COVE: The special services are completely outside the guarantee.

Lord E. PERCY: No.

Mr. COVE: That was admitted by the Minister previously.

Lord E. PERCY: No.

Mr. COVE: The Minister will want to write a pamphlet to explain the financial effect of his own scheme. He has admitted clearly and definitely
to-day that the special service of education and the police service are outside the guarantee.

Lord E, PERCY: No.

Mr. COVE: Let us have the full? explanation of it, then. This is really a matter with which we want to get to grips. I have given the Noble Lord an opportunity, and he does not respond. I am afraid he does not understand the effects of the finance of the scheme upon his own service. What is going to happen in the future? We have this curious situation arising under the scheme, that increased expenditure upon education may attract, as I understand it, an increased grant into the general Exchequer pool, but none of that money will go in relief of the education service. The education service will be entirely and solely dependent upon the education grants. If educational expansion is to take place in a de-rated area, the poundage is bound to go up, because it is being levied upon a lower rateable value. Education will have to stand on its own feet, and merely get the grants for the education service. Obviously, the education rate is going to leap up. The real purpose of the Bill is not to relieve and revive industry, but to stabilise expenditure on the social services. It will stabilise expenditure on education. If it does not, what is going to happen? Every normal expansion of education will fall upon a smaller rateable value. It will result in an increased education rate having to be levied in order to get the same sum. The President of the Board of Education may be complacent about the attitude of the local authorities but they are seriously perturbed about the whole position of education. Even if the general county rate is reduced, we cannot stand idly by and see the education rate leap up as the direct result of this, because it will be an invitation to the harassed ratepayer to try to reduce it. The Noble Lord is the first Education Minister to view with supercilious hilarity the position that would arise when the education rate leaped up. He is the custodian of that service but he is in the hands of the Minister of Health, and he is doing a great disservice to education.

Commander WILLIAMS: I think it is right that a guarantee against loss, apportioned between the counties and the smaller local authorities, is given by the Government to the smaller authorities for five years. The counties are guaranteed as a whole against loss indefinitely. I do not think hon. Members opposite have shown quite that Knowledge of figures and quickness that one might expect from them. I do not pretend to be able to unravel the financial side of the Bill, but it is not quite as difficult as they are finding it. Let us take the comparatively simple position of county Durham. Apparently they will lose £1,100,000 from de-rating property. Then they say, quite accurately as far as I understand it, that will mean that a penny rate will bring in less. Obviously, if you de-rate every form of property a penny rate will produce nothing at all, but that is entirely immaterial and has nothing whatever to do with the point. The point is that the Government definitely guarantee that that £1,100,000 will be repaid. Added to that £1,100,000 there will be a further £200,000 which will be given to the county, and it will gain that beyond its present position as far as the standard year is concerned, so that Durham will have to find in rates something like £1,300,000 less. There may be people who do not want Durham to know that. They do not want the workers in the district to realise it. At the same time, there is the fact and it is clear for all to see.
Let us come to the standard year. I have maintained, here and in other places, that during the next three or four years, owing to a great many things, it is quite possible that various local authorities may find themselves in a position of loss, but the counties as a whole are definitely guaranteed against that loss unless they deliberately put up their expenditure. But at the end of three yars, a comparativly short time, on the basis of population, etc., there will be an entire readjustment of the position. I would not have minded if those three years had been two but the whole thing remains, that for the first period there can be no loss unless they deliberately put up their expenditure. On the other hand, supposing they do put it up—supposing Durham inaugurates some service which will cost the county £50,000
or £100,000 more—the county will not be any the worse off than it is to-day, because it has this £200,000 additional grant beyond what it loses, which will mean that, if they choose, they can expend the money on increased facilities and better services. Far from local authorities being worse off with these various grants, they will be infinitely better off in the end, and I believe, if hon. Members opposite had seen exactly where they are, they could have found a very much better line on which to attack the Ministry.
Take the question of the education authorities. I can quite see that you might have not very creditable persons going up and down the county and saying the actual education rate may be rather higher. Only a comparatively unscrupulous person would use such an argument, because if the whole of the county rate is down because the county is better off owing to the fact that it has not got to find more money, I cannot for the life of me see what it matters if a certain rate goes up. I have never yet heard of a county which would mind if the education rate went up a little. There may be places where they would, but as far as the majority of counties are concerned, I do not think it would matter as long as you get the position under this Bill that, generally speaking, the whole of the local authorities will be better off, and there will not be any increase in the rates to be paid because of the Bill.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: The Minister of Health has been absent during the greater part of the discussion and I do not know whether he takes any responsibility for the declarations made by the Parliamentary Secretary, but I was surprised at the hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench. In fact he did not reply at all. He never touched the question put by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member opposite. He simply made the bald statement that no local authority or county council will suffer as the result of this 1s. a head that has been granted to the county council and the local authorities and that, with the 75 per cent. given to productive industries, everything in the garden will be lovely. What authority he has for making that declaration I cannot
say. He says the local authorities are perfectly satisfied with this arrangement. He knows quite well that that is untrue, because if the Minister of Health looks at his correspondence he will find that Abergavenny, Blaenavon, Abersychan, Pontypool, Panteg and Llanfrechfa are protesting on account of the liability that is going to be transferred to the county council and the £1,000,000 that is owing to the Minister of Health. That means that, according to the figures given by the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence), they are going to get this 1s. a head relief, which amounts in some instances to 2d. in the £. But the transference of this £1,000,000 from Bedwellty to the county council of Monmouthshire means 1s. a. head in the rates for the next 15 years. Therefore, instead of getting 9d. for 4d., they are going to give 10d. and receive 2d. That is the whole of the proposals as far as this 2d. and 1s. are concerned. I confess that the Minister has met the local authorities to the extent of 3d., but it still leaves 9d. I will discuss that on Clause 96. As far as the permanent officials are concerned, Sir Ernest Strohmenger has given every help and assistance to the experts in Monmouthshire and Glamorganshire in order to get these figures. Coming to the question of productive industry, the Minister will remember that on the Second Reading he stated that the object of the Bill was to relieve industry to the extent of 75 per cent. with a view to reducing costs and also prices. We who are connected with the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation took that matter up because, if prices were going to be reduced, we saw that the wages of our people who are working on a sliding scale would be reduced.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): How does the hon. Member connect this with the new arrangement for distributing the Exchequer grants?

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I am replying to the Parliamentary Secretary. We have been discussing the scheme all the afternoon, and I am dealing with the whole scheme. On the advice of the Minister, we went to meet the iron and steel employers of the country, and the only reply we got from the employers was that, as far as de-
rating and the 75 per cent. relief were concerned, the only thing they could say was that they would be standing in a queue with their hat out for a share of the £26,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was dealing with county apportionment, and the argument, as I understood it, was whether we could properly make up for the deficiency owing to de-rating. I do not see what the iron and steel industry have got to do with it.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: It is very unfortunate that you change seats there. One Deputy-Chairman has given the privilege and—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot make these reflections upon my predecessor. The question is whether the grant will make up for the losses. If he can connect his argument with that, I shall be glad to hear him.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I am trying to connect it in such a way that I can reply to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I can do so only if you give me permission to reply to his arguments. I thought that, as he raised this question, this was the time to show that not only was the two-penny rate or 1s. per head of the population not satisfactory to the authorities, but that the other point of the 76 per cent. relief to industry was going to be a loss as well. I was going to develop that argument, because every speaker today has dealt with the whole scheme. I am very sorry if you say I am out of order, because then only a portion of what I was going to say will appear, and may be misconstrued and misunderstood all over the country.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not want to do the hon. Member an injustice. The whole point here is whether this additional grant will make up for the loss. If he can connect it with his own county or any other county, he will be perfectly in order, but I cannot see any connection between this and the effect on wages in the steel and iron industry.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I shall not pursue it any further. Perhaps the Minister of Health will tell us how this value of the twopenny rate or 1s. per head is going to repay for the responsibility that is going to be transferred to the county council as far as Monmouth is concerned.
I admit that he has met the local authorities by the 3d. On the other hand, I remind him that all the local authorities have protested against the other matter, because the value that they will receive as the result of de-rating will be nullified when this extra expenditure will be imposed upon them.

Miss LAWRENCE: In listening to the Debate I could not help wondering how it was that so many respectable householders opposite had never noticed what were the rates that they paid. If they had all been young men of 21, introduced for the first time to the responsibility of being ratepayers, I could have understood it. Local authorities are to be guaranteed at least 1d. or 2d. over the rates of 1928. I remember the time when the poor rate was 10 times smaller than it is to-day. In my own time the amount spent in outdoor relief has increased 10 times. Since I came into public affairs, the local burden of rates has increased by a great deal more than twice—nearly three times. Within the last few years the whole of the rate-borne expenditure has increased £6,000,000 in one or in two years. If hon. Members will remember the light, small, easy rates they used to pay before the War, and reflect upon the very heavy rates they have to pay now, they will see precisely what the local authorities are concerned with. We are living in more or less prosperous districts, but there are places where the rates have doubled, and a good deal more than doubled since the War.
That is the whole point of the question. Rates have risen ever since we have known them. They have risen very much during the time of the present Government. Look back at 1900, or 1905 to the bills paid for rates then. You will see how the rate-borne expenditure has gone up. What good would it be for us now if a guarantee had been given that we should receive not loss than 1d. over the rates of 1900? I ask hon. Members opposite to look back on the rates paid 10 or 20 years ago, and reflect how much good would a guarantee be to us of a penny over those rates. That is the whole point of the matter. With the increasing population and the expansion in services, rates will increase. Even in 1870 Mr. Forster said that the education rate would never be over 3d. If there had been an assurance
given in 1870 that an amount equivalent to an education rate of 6d. would be guaranteed to localities, what losers we would be! The householder will have to make up whatever difference in expenditure is brought about by the relief to the manufacturer. If you take off a quarter of the rateable value of the locality, then the householder and the shopkeeper will have to shoulder the whole of the burdens in excess of 1d. or 2d. above the standard rates. That is the thing that makes local authorities so alarmed.
To say that the districts are guaranteed against loss is to say something totally untrue. The Minister has never said he guarantees against loss, because he understands his subject. Innocent Conservative Members run about the country telling their constituents that they are guaranteed against loss. Chickens will come home to roost, and their constituents will see that the rates have gone up. I come back to the guarantee. If the guarantee was a firm guarantee that they should receive so much money, the equivalent of the difference between the rates in the future and now, that would be another matter, but it is not a firm guarantee. There is no guarantee after the first eight years to any individual place. The guarantee depends, first, upon the amount of the general Exchequer contribution, and it is perfectly possible that the general Exchequer contribution for the whole country will not move in proportion to the expenditure in particular places. It is conceivable that the general Exchequer contribution to the country as a whole may remain steady, and the expenditure and the rates in particular districts may go up. That is the first point which makes the guarantee as applied to any particular place not effective.
The second point is this, and it is an amusing and a technical point. It is that the guarantee fails if the weighted population of the country has been decreased. Those are the two conditions which allow the 1s. a head to be paid to the locality. If these two are not fulfilled the shilling per head is reduced. We have the certainty in a great number of places that the weighted population will go down even if circumstances remain the same. In some places
the weighted population must go down if all the circumstances remain the same, and the reason for that is the change in the weight attached to unemployment. The unemployment figure of 1.5 of the population is now to be multiplied by 10. That is one of the factors under which the weighted population is determined, and it is an important factor.
Two of the factors, the rateable value and the percentage, are multiplied by the weighted figure of unemployment. The multiple of the weighted figure of unemployment is to be reduced by gradual steps from ten to a little over three. If unemployment remains the same and you multiply it by 3.2 instead of by 10 and then multiply the rateable value and the number of children by the figure for unemployment, it is quite clear that, even if the children, rateable value, and the actual amount of unemployment remains the same, the weighted population will be less. That makes the whole business of weighted population a thing of extreme uncertainty. My short point is that the weighted population is determined, among other things, by the weight given to the unemployment factor. The weight given to the unemployment factor has to change in proportion to the amount contributed under the formula. The fact that the very important factor of the formula changes, and changes arbitrarily, will very much disturb the weighted population it seems to me, with the best study of the details I can make, that many of the districts at present affected by the weighted figure of unemployment will lose in weighted population when the prescribed period comes to an end.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that, owing to some other engagements which I could not possibly avoid, I have had to be absent from a good deal of the Debate this afternoon, and I have not, therefore, had the advantage of hearing all the difficulties which have been put forward by hon. Members opposite. I have been here for the last half-hour and I should like for one or two minutes to try and make the position a little clearer in regard to some of the difficulties which, I think, have been put forward under a misapprehension of the working of this scheme. I would like to say, in the first place, that it has appeared to me that hon. Members have largely confused
the situation in what the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence) called individual places, that is, as I understand, in county districts, with the situation in the county borough or the county as a whole. These questions of guarantee with which we are dealing in the Amendment under discussion are questions which apply to the county as a whole. There will be other questions which arise when we come to deal with individual places, with the county districts or the non-county boroughs, and with these, of course, we shall deal under Clause 73. We are not now dealing with these places, but with the counties as a whole. We must not confuse, therefore, pledges and guarantees which apply to one class of local authority with those which apply to another.
The guarantee itself seems to provide a source of considerable difficulty. I do not think that all hon. Members quite understand what a guarantee is. When you say that you guarantee that a county as a whole shall gain not less than 1s. per head of population, you do not mean that every county is to have that particular gain and no other. It means that they are not to have less than that amount. That, I should have thought, would have been fairly obvious to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontypool (Mr. T. Griffiths) who, I regret, is not now present. He was talking to me about the position of Monmouth and asking me to explain how Monmouth was going to gain anything when, he said, they were only going to get 1s. a head gain for the county as a whole and at the same time would have to shoulder a burden equivalent to a rate of 1s. in the £. The answer is, that Monmouth is not one of the counties to which this guarantee will apply, for the simple reason that Monmouth will gain not 1s. per head of population but something over 78 pence per head of the population, after making an allowance for the transference of the liability of the Bedwellty Guardians to the county. The fact that I am amending the proposition and giving still more favourable terms by my Amendment in the case of these transferred debts than is provided under the Bill should further increase the gain to the county of Monmouth. As I said when I was moving the Amendment, hon. Members must remember that the guarantee we are talking
of here applies only to a very small minority of the counties. The greater number of the counties gain a great deal more than that, and, in fact, will have substantial additional resources at their disposal.
The hon. Member for East Ham, North has a difficulty about the question of the weighted population. She says that this guarantee, which, of course, applies to the standard sum, is no guarantee, because it is to be reduced if the weighted population goes down. She says that the weighted population may go down even though all the conditions remain the same. I say that that is impossible. The weighted population can only go down if the conditions change, because it is the conditions that give the weight to the population, and you cannot alter the weight of population unless those conditions, or some of them, change. Then she said that there is a different multiple in different quinquennia and that as you distribute from the pool more and more according to the formula so does the multiple, which is the way in which the unemployment factor is applied, come down. That is perfectly true. What we want to assure is that the unemployment factor shall have its fullest effect when the whole of the money is being distributed according to the formula. When only part is being distributed according to the formula we must raise that unemployment factor so that the unemployment factor may still have the same effect as if the whole of the money were distributed under the formula. If we do not make some special provision it is quite true that the reduction of the unemployment multiple would reduce this guarantee and make it of no avail. I am surprised that that difficulty should come from the hon. Member because she has evidently devoted a good deal of attention to this matter, and in regard to paragraph (b) of Sub-section (3) of this Clause she has an Amendment down. Therefore, she cannot have overlooked the fact that we suggest here that the unemployment factor should be adjusted. If she will read again Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (3) she will see that this particular objection has been anticipated, and, in fact, in applying the guarantee to future quinquennial periods, the multiple will be altered. We are going to have the same multiple in both cases.
It remains the case that under this guarantee no county can by reason of the scheme possibly lose anything.
Nobody is so silly as to suggest that we could guarantee, or that we should be likely to guarantee in any Measure, that the rates in all places, or in any places in the country, should be stabilised for all time. It is not the purpose of Parliament to lay down that rates should not go beyond a certain point in a certain locality. Obviously, that is impossible. If you are going to bring in a new scheme, a drastic change in local government, which is obviously going to affect the finances of local authorities in one way or another, it is a reasonable thing for local authorities to say to us: "Is this scheme of yours going to put us in a worse position?" The effect of our guarantee is to say to them: "You are still free to use your privileges as local government directors to raise your rates if you choose and to spend more money on your services, but we say that you shall not be any worse off by reason of the changes we are here proposing in this Bill." That is what we are giving the counties to understand when we say that they shall have a guarantee per head of the population. When we come to other guarantees in regard to these individual places, they are guarantees of a different kind, and I am not going to enter into them. They do

not seem to me to be at ail appropriate to this Clause, and we shall have plenty of opportunities on another Clause to discuss individual authorities. I am dealing only with guarantees which apply to counties and which have their analogue in a subsequent Clause as applied to county boroughs, and I hope that the explanation which I have given will do something to remove some of the difficulties of hon. Members.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have a complaint to make. I think the right hon. Gentleman has not treated the matter with the seriousness which it deserves, but we have extracted this fact. We have a formula of words which has never been explained to us. If it means the best the Government can say of it, every penny of expenditure over the expenditure of this year, however abnormally low the expenditure of this year may be, will have to be paid for by the ratepayers out of reduced rateable value, and that will mean higher rates. That is what the explanation means, and there we leave it.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

The Committee divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 116.

Division No. 118.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burman, J. B.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Albery, Irving James
Campbell, E. T.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Carver, Major W. H.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cassels, J. D.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Applin, Colonel B. V. K.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fermoy, Lord


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.


Atkinson, C.
Chapman, Sir S.
Forrest, W.


Baifour, George (Hampstead)
Christie, J. A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Gates, Percy


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Colman, N. C. D.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bennett, A. J.
Cooper, A. Duff
Goff, Sir Park


Sentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cope, Major Sir William
Gower, Sir Robert


Berry, Sir George
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Grant, Sir J. A.


Bethel, A.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Crookshank, Cpt.H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Guinness. Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cunlifle, Sir Herbert
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hacking, Douglas H.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hamilton, Sir George


Briggs, J. Harold
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harrison, G. J. C.


Briscoe, Richard George
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hartington, Marquess of


Brittain, Sir Harry
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson. Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Buckingham, Sir H.
Ellis, R. G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bullock, Captain M.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Hills, Major John Waller
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Hilton, Cecil
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Hoare. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon, G. F.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun-)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mosslay)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Streatforld, Captain S. R.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hon.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld-)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hurst, Gerald B.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford Luton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Sugden, Sir Wilfrld


Iveagh, Countess of
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


James, Lieut-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Penny, Frederick George
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tinne, J. A.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Tomlinson, R. p.


Lamb, J. Q.
Pilcher, G.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Loder, J. de V.
Radford, E. A.
Waddington, R.


Lougher, Lewis
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Ward, Lt.-Col.A. L. (Kingston-on-Huff)


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lumley, L. R.
Reid, D. D, (County Down)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Remer, J. R.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


McLean, Major A.
Ropner, Major L.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Macquisten, F, A.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Womersley, W. J.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sandon, Lord
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Malone, Major P. B.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Shaw, Lt.-Col.A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley



Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfit)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Meller, R. J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Captain Margesson and Captain




Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Scurr, John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shinwell, E.


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bellamy, A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sitch, Charles H.


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithes)


Bromfield, William
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Lindley, F. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Livingstone, A. M.
Strauss, E. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Longbottom, A. W.
Sullivan, J,


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lunn, William
Taylor, R. A.


Connolly, M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R.(Aberavos)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Cove, W. G.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thurtle, Ernest


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universitlas)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Townend, A. E.


Gardner, J. P.
March, S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Gillett, George M.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wallhead, Richard C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenall, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.
Wellock, Wilfred


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)
Purcell, A. A.
Windsor, Walter


Hall, G. H (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hardle, George D.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)



Harris, Percy A.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sakiatvala, Shapurji

CLAUSE 73.—(General Exchequer grants to districts.)

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 59, line 13, to leave out from the word "district" in line 13 to the end of line 20 and to insert instead thereof the words, "the total losses on account of rates."
The purpose of the Amendment is to secure to the councils of districts the actual losses which they incur as a result of the de-rating of particular hereditaments. Let us look at this question from the point of view of the local authorities. They regard this de-rating proposal in itself as a deal between the Government and industry. It has nothing whatever to do with the local authorities. The Government in their wisdom, for what that wisdom may be worth, say: "It would be a very good thing to de-rate industrial enterprises. That would stimulate industry. We will, therefore, de-rate mines, factories, workshops, docks and railways." That was an intelligible and reasonable proposal; it was in the nature of a treaty between the Government and industry. The local authorities had nothing whatever to do with it. It did not concern them, except that they lost a certain amount of rateable value. The reasonable thing to do is to go to all these non-county borough, urban district and rural district councils within a county, and say to them: "Because of our national policy we are de-rating certain hereditaments. We think you ought not to suffer; we will, therefore, recompense you for the loss which you have sustained in each area." That would have been reasonable and fair. As I understand it, that is the attitude that has always been taken by the local authorities. They say: "We are not concerned about de-rating, as such, if the Government like to de-rate people, that" is their lookout, provided they will recompense us just exactly what we have lost."
The effect of the Government's scheme is, that they have measured the total amount of de-rating as, say, £24,000,000, and have put that into a pool, to distribute, not to each county district and local authority in proportion to its loss, but they have put it into a pool with some other money, to distribute that total pool in a way which has no reference
whatever to what any particular local authority has lost. The result of the operation of the apportionment as it stands in the Bill is to give greater advantage to some authorities than to others, not because of any difference in their circumstances, but largely because of the difference in the extent to which de-rating has gone in particular areas. That is one of the reasons why the results of the scheme work out so fantastically from area to area.
You cannot explain the difference in the assistance alleged to be given under the scheme to different local authorities by the difference in their needs or their circumstances. The difference arises very largely because some county districts have been do-rated far more than other county districts and they are not getting due recompense because of that excessive de-rating, as compared with other districts. It. seems reasonable, therefore, to suggest that when you are distributing the money you should, at least, see that the districts are compensated for de-rating loss. That has nothing whatever to do either with health grants or road grants.
What is the proposal in the Clause? It is a distribution within the district. In Part IV of the Fourth Schedule, you will find the rules for calculating the sums to be allocated to districts on the basis of population. There are three rules:
1. The number of pence produced by dividing one-half of the total amount of the county apportionments to counties other than London by the aggregate of the estimated populations of those counties in the appropriate year shall be ascertained to the nearest penny.
2. The amount to be allocated to an urban district shall be the number of pence ascertained under Rule I contained in this Part of this Schedule multiplied by the estimated population of the district in the appropriate year.
3. The amount to be allocated to a rural district shall be one-fifth of the number of pence ascertained under Rule I contained in this Part of this Schedule multiplied by the estimated population of the district in the appropriate year.
What does that mean? It means, in effect, that the method by which county districts are going to get their share of these Government grants is based purely on population, not on what they have lost in rateable value. What is more extraordinary is the differentiation as
between urban districts, whether they are urban district councils or non-county boroughs, and rural districts. In one case it is estimated on population and in the other on one-fifth of the population, presumably the reason being that urban districts have larger powers than rural districts, and therefore do not need as much in the way of State grant. Why it should have been worked out to one-fifth I cannot understand. There is a difference between the way county districts are going to get their share and the way in which counties and county boroughs are to get theirs. In the case of the latter authorities the Government grant is to be allocated on the basis of the formula, which starts with population as its basis, and proceeds to weight that population by different varying factors on the ground that, so far as counties and county boroughs are concerned, a pure population basis would inflict injustice as between one area and another.
But when the Government comes to the case of the non-county boroughs and urban districts, many of them as large as county boroughs, the allocation is to be made in a different way. No longer are these various factors to be allowed to weight the population basis, but the grant is to be allocated on a pure population basis without regard to any other consideration whatever. In the case of rural district councils, although the rule calls it one-fifth of the number of pence given under Rule 1, they are to get the grant virtually on one-fifth of the population. It is difficult to justify this extraordinary elaborate and unscientific way of allocating the grants, and there is nothing we can do effectively to improve the Clause. The only thing we can do is to ensure that county districts shall receive according to the sacrifices they have made to help the Government out of their difficulties. They are the people who are giving up rateable value, who are giving up their resources, in order to help industry, and they ought to be recompensed according to the sacrifices they have made in that respect. The object of this Amendment is to set aside the form of distribution of the county grants in the Bill and substitute for it one based on loss of rates and the sacrifices county districts have made.

Mr. E. BROWN: If the result of the scheme is important to a county it is infinitely more important as regards an urban district, a non-county borough inside the county. At least there is an attempt by an arbitrary formula to apportion the moneys in the General Exchequer Contribution according to the need. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us the reasons that weighed with the Government. Grant, for a moment, that the scheme of the formula is sound and scientific. If it is sound and scientific for the county and county boroughs, why does it become unscientific when it is applied to non-county boroughs, urban districts and rural districts? That puzzle has been exercising the minds of a good many hon. Members and also a good many local administrators outside, as the Parliamentary Secretary well knows. If these county districts were smaller in population than counties and county boroughs one could quite understand that the factor weighing with the Government would have been—size. The Government say that as they have de-rated areas and narrowed the assessment basis, only the larger authorities will carry other services outside these arrangements, but, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows there are rural district councils four times as large as some county boroughs.
I have in mind a rural district council with a population of 113,000. Canterbury is a county borough with 24,000 population. Rutland is a county with 14,800 population, and gets an apportionment based according to the formula on the weighted population, a so-called scientific formula, but this rural district with over 100,000 population and five urban districts with over 100,000 population, including Ilford, are not to have control over their services or the apportionment of these moneys according to the formula but only according to the arbitrary calculation of their population. There is to be no recognition of their needs at first hand. I agree that the primary apportionment must affect the secondary apportionment; that is to say, that if the weighted population works out well over a county as a whole the apportionment is likely to work out well for most of the areas inside the county, but if the apportionment works out badly, as the Parliamentary Secretary said it would but for the guarantee, it will work out badly in the case of all
county boroughs inside a county which loses heavily by de-rating. We ask for a lucid statement as to what really moved the Government to do this. The yield of a penny rate, while very important in the case of a county, becomes supreme in the case of the rating authority.
The three considerations which I desire to urge on the Parliamentary Secretary are these. First, has the Government given due weight to the fact that population itself is no test of expenditure on the one hand or loss of rates on the other? Secondly, has the Government realised that by applying this apportionment to county districts, on the basis of actual population, they are going to differentiate between one county district and another? Some county districts will lose little by de-rating whilst others will lose heavily, inside a county area. Thirdly, the figures I have already given this evening prove that there are great discrepancies as between one county district and another, whether it is a non-county borough, an urban district, or a rural district, and the yield of a penny rate thus becomes of supreme importance in the case of rural districts. Yesterday, I was given the case of a parish, a large parish, purely agricultural, and the results of de-rating there. The result is that a penny rate in future will only raise £4. Spread over a purely rural area, with only shopkeepers and houses to meet the rate burdens, and the effect is to absolutely destroy in the case of such county districts the whole basis of rating. You may give moneys at second-hand, according to the formula, to the county, you may take 50 per cent. of that and then apply the test of actual population, but the fact is that the scheme takes no account of actual expenditure incurred, or any increase of expenditure by the expansion of the ordinary services to be incurred, or any account of the actual loss of rates in any one of these county areas.
Let me ask the Parliamentary Secretary this question. He said that the Government had come to an agreement with local authorities. Does it include the Rural District Councils Association and the Urban District Councils Association? The financial effect of these proposals on these small authorities, where de-rating is large in amount and where there may be an increased expenditure
after five years, will be such as to shatter the whole rating basis. The Committee before it passes this Clause and this particular apportionment should make quite sure that each rating authority whether rural, district or urban district or non-county borough, shall have made up to it the actual amount of rates lost because of the Government scheme of de-rating in that particular area.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions on this matter, and particularly as to the effect this is going to have upon certain rural areas in the country. I have grave doubts about the equity of this policy as applied to certain areas. Let me draw the attention of my hon. Friend to a typical case; an area where new mines are being developed. It is the case of Thorne, a rural council area, where the major portion of their rates will be drawn from two new mines which are being developed. The social needs of the district until recently have been comparatively small. Their expenditure, therefore, would he small in the year for which the figures were obtained when the Minister was compiling White Paper No. 2327. On the 1926–27 estimates it is indicated that in this particular case an advantage would be derived by that particular authority. But it seems to me that the figures for that year have no relation to what the figures will be five years ahead. The mines are developing rapidly; houses are being erected by the hundred every year. A new population is coming to the district and social services of every description will have to be provided in the near future. The past expenditure has no relation to what future expenditure will be.
The needs of an area like this will be far and away beyond the ordinary needs of a district which has developed normally over a considerable period of time. Therefore, it seems to me that the first effect of de-rating will be pretty well to shatter the finances of a rural council of that description. Not only will de-rating of the collieries affect the finances seriously, but the de-rating of all agricultural land and buildings in the same area will have a very serious effect. The Fourth Schedule and the arrangement there as to one-fifth will scarcely be adequate to
meet a case of that description. I rather suspect that the Minister, when preparing this formula, this method of recouping local authorities, had in mind the long straggling rural area where the population is very thin and where de-rating cannot by any stretch of imagination have the same effect as in a rural area where you have two or three new mines and where the local authority will be called upon to provide all sorts of services for a new population.
It must be noted that year after year, for the next 10 years or more, the local authority will be hard put to it to meet the elementary needs of the local population, and its expenditure will continue to increase year by year unless the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that the normal expenditure in the standard year, or something beyond that expenditure, is provided for in the Fourth Schedule. It is obvious, then, that a rural district council of this description will have its rates increased far beyond the rate increase in one of the areas where the normal social services for a fairly static population have been provided in years past. I ask whether particular attention has been paid to cases of this description. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that this is one of the border-line eases which should not be provided for in a great national scheme. If that should be the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, we are at least entitled to ask that, so long as the Government recognise that in certain cases injustices are bound to accrue through the preparation of a great national scheme, special provision ought to be made so that social services will not be denied to the local residents, and that the health services will in no way be impaired because of this Bill.
This one-fifth of the local rates, based on population, is a further fact which will affect local people in the case quoted, since population will be increasing at an alarming rate until the colliery is fully developed, and there is a full, normal staff employed. It is our experience that, once a colliery begins to develop, the influx of new residents is fairly rapid —500 or 1,000 a year. The right hon. Gentleman will see that large sums of money are required to meet the normal services. I feel that this specially reduced rate to rural areas in certain cases will not meet the situation. I should be
pleased, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether, in building up the table for this scheme, the Government gave special consideration to cases of this kind.

Sir K. WOOD: The matter that we are conisdering is the General Exchequer Grant to districts, and in Clause 73 we provide that a certain sum is to be set on one side out of the county apportionment for the payment of councils of districts, and we make a further provision in the Fourth Schedule as to how that sum is to be calculated. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment desires to provide that, instead of the method proposed by the Government, the county districts should receive their direct loss, in respect of rates, arising from the Measure. I need hardly tell the Committee that this matter has been a subject of serious consideration by the Government. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has considerable knowledge of the Bill, and I tell him at once that obviously the first consideration has been to make a satisfactory arrangement which will do justice to the great majority of the districts, and if justice is not done under the general rule which we may adopt, to make some supplementary provision which will meet the oases of the minorities that may be affected.
If the hon. Member for Leith ever has as I hope he may in time to come, the responsibility of framing any new method of that kind, I think that that would be the manner in which he would approach his task. We too often forget, in discussing the present arrangement, the anomalies which exist and which we are seeking to remove. In any consideration of a scheme of this kind, we must always keep that fact before us, because, whatever our views may be on the Government scheme, there will be very few who will be prepared to defend the injustices and anomalies that exist to-day. That is really the basis of the Government's proposals. In the first place, speaking broadly, you make a general rule, and then you make a provision to meet those cases which may require further consideration as a result of that general rule.
In this particular case it is asked, "Why do you give to a rural district
council only one-fifth, on the basis of population, of the amount given to a borough or an urban district council in the same county?" The broad reply is that, of course, after the cost of the rural highways has been transferred from the rural district councils to the county as a whole, very little will remain as a charge on the rural district rates. On the rates of the several urban districts, on the other hand, there will remain the charge for their own district highways and the expenses of other services, sewerage and so forth, incurred more frequently in urban than in rural districts, and the amount in the £ of the district rates will consequently be much higher in urban than in rural districts. That matter has been fully explained to the local authorities, and, broadly speaking, that is why the differentiation has been made.
More than one speaker has raised the point that the needs of urban district councils within a county are obviously very diverse, and that the grant to each should not be uniform per head of population. I am speaking now in terms of the great majority of cases which will be affected by this particular proposal. Obviously in a very large number of cases, owing to the small number of the population, it would be almost impossible to apply the formula basis which you could apply to a much bigger population where the various factors which compose our formula basis come into play. That is obvious to anyone. I put it to the hon. Member or Leith, who has studied this matter, that at any rate the giving of the grant on this population basis will operate to bring about one of the results aimed at by this scheme, and that is the further equalisation of rates in so far as it will give to the population of urban areas on a low rateable value much more in terms of amount in the £ than it will give to urban areas of an equal population on a high rateable value.
Let me give an illustration. Assume grants of 100 pence per head of a population of 12,000 in urban district A where the rateable value is £3 per head, is equivalent to the produce of a rate of 33⅓ pence per pound of rateable value, and so it will operate towards reducing the local rate by that amount; while
a grant of 100 pence per head of a population of 12,000 in urban district B, where the rateable value is £6 per head, is equivalent to the produce of a rate of only 16⅔ pence per £, and so will operate towards reducing the local rate by that amount. It follows that so far as A and B are concerned, they have to bear the charge common to both, that is the county rate, at a uniform amount in the £, or again a charge like that for unclassified urban roads does not vary widely in different districts. The distribution of the grant on the basis of population will tend to put the poorer area A in a relatively better position than the richer area B to bear the charges common to both. Since it would reduce the poundage of the poorer area more than that of the wealthier area it would tend to lessen the disparity between the respective total rates in the £.
That illustration has gone a long way to alter the opinions of a good many members of local authorities who, at first sight, thought that this proposal might operate against the poorer areas in favour of the wealthier areas. As I think the Committee will have seen from that illustration, the argument is the other way. Turning to the Amendment itself the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) said that this flat rate ought to be removed from the Clause but he has overlooked the fact that, as a consequence, there would also have to be removed a provision as to the deduction of another sum relating to those authorities which undertake maternity and child welfare services. I think the hon. Member has also overlooked the fact that as regards rural districts, in parts of which there are special or parish rates, we have provided that a sum is to be deducted in respect of rates in that connection. The Amendment would delete those matters and would provide that each county district should only receive the total loss on account of rates. Even with that, on the Amendment itself I suggest to the Committee that the resulting distribution of the grant inside the county itself would be unfair.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) has occupied a responsible position in connection with education, and has always been, as he is today, interested in that matter. He will see that if this were done it would be
unfair as between local authorities which are autonomous for elementary education and those which are not. The loss of local rates in the case of the autonomous authority would be increased, because the local rate itself would be increased by the rate for educational purposes; and the non-autonomous authority for education, although it has to pay the education rate on a county precept, would receive no credit for its loss on this rate. The method proposed by the Amendment would, therefore, effect an unfair distribution of the grant received by local authorities in favour of those authorities which are responsible for their own education services. I know that the intention of hon. Members opposite is simply to raise these points, and I do not think it will be desired to press the Amendment further. Even if adjustments were made to remedy this unfairness, the method of distribution would, usually, I can assure the Committee, be less favourable to the whole of the poorer areas than the method proposed in the Bill. While the Amendment undoubtedly has served a useful purpose in raising these points, I do not think anyone would desire to persist in it, owing to the undoubted disadvantages which would arise if its actual terms were incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the case which I submitted?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member knows that it is almost impossible for me to deal with individual cases, but I promise him that I will look at the particulars of the case which he has raised and study it in the OFFICIAL REPORT and see if I can furnish him with a reply on the particular matter raised. I am dealing with this Amendment on general grounds, and I do not desire to give my opinion on an individual case without first giving it very careful consideration. Other matters may be involved in it which are not apparent to me at the present moment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman does not think that when a case is submitted on behalf of a particular authority or area that that is the only authority or area of the kind in the country. He must know, for instance, that every new colliery is sunk
in the area of a rural council. Those are cases which are bound to be adversely affected unless this scheme of allocating grants is a perfect one. I thought the right hon. Gentleman would at least be able to say that in arranging this matter they had taken such cases into consideration, and that there were certain reasons which satisfied them that justice would be done in such cases. When the right hon. Gentleman says that once roads are taken out of the expenses of the rural councils there is little or nothing left, he forgets that that is not quite the whole of the case. Some rural areas may have a comparatively small mileage of roads and yet their parish expenses may be abnormal. All these circumstances justify one in asking if the Minister took into consideration the special cases of developing areas, particularly those where new mines are being sunk.

Sir K. WOOD: I am sorry if I did not answer the hon. Member's question as fully as I might have. Obviously we gave considerable consideration to this matter of the allocation and while I do not want to minimise unduly the points raised by the hon. Member I think, speaking broadly, the allocation which has been made is a fair one. Speaking generally, and without regard to any particular case, I would say that one of the advantages of the arrangement under the scheme is this. As a factory starting in a district attracts population in the course of time, so, as the population comes into that particular district, it attracts so much per head of population under the scheme. That is a great advantage compared with the present position because very often we find a state of affairs in which a local authority has to bear a burden without receiving any assistance at all from the fact that new population is being attracted into the area. Whatever we may have against the scheme, one of its advantages is that as population conies into an area that area attracts so much per head of population on that account. Broadly, that is one of the answers to the hon. Member. I will certainly look into the particular case he mentioned and see if there is anything further which I can put to him on that case.

Mr. G. HALL: The right hon. Gentleman did not reply to the question put to him by the hon. Member for Leith
(Mr. E. Brown) as to whether there has been agreement between the Government and the Urban District Councils' Association on this question.

Sir K. WOOD: The two authorities with whom we have been in agreement are the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations.

Mr. HALL: Then that means that there is no agreement between the Government and the Urban District Councils Association, and one can quite understand it, because I think the latter have a real grievance in connection with this question of payment. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought a number of the poorer districts would benefit as a result of these proposals. I speak as representing a very poor district, where the rates have been very high for the last three or four years. I know it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that it is almost impossible to have a formula that will satisfy all the difficulties that are likely to arise, but I think something ought to be done for those local authorities which are losing a large amount of rateable value as a result of these proposals, and not in any way to make their position more difficult than it is now. I know the Attorney-General would say that as far as a number of districts are concerned, the Government will see that for five years, at any rate, they will be no worse off, because of the supplementary grant, but what they are doing is almost perpetuating a rate which is a very high rate and which is in operation in the basic year 1928–9. The right hon. Gentleman referred—

Sir K. WOOD: I made a slight mistake in my answer just now. I understand that the Urban District Councils Association have communicated with the Ministry generally accepting the scheme. I think there are one or two matters outstanding on points not of great importance, but I think I ought to correct my statement that only the other two Associations had come to an agreement.

Mr. HALL: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. May I give as an example, the district which I represent, because there is this to be said about this
scheme, that the larger the amount of industrial hereditaments in de-rate property, the greater the loss to these urban district councils. In the division which I have the honour to represent, there is an urban district council, called the Mountain Ash Urban District Council, with 40 per cent. of its rateable value made up of industrial hereditaments, or colliery property. The total rateable value of that area is about £170,000. They have industrial hereditaments of a rateable value of something like £80,000, and they are losing through these de-rating proposals a rateable value of something like £60,000. With rates at 28s. in the £, as they are at the present time, you can see that they are losing rates, as a result of these proposals, amounting to about £80,000, and all that they will receive from this block grant of 150d. per head, is approximately £30,000. There you have a very serious loss. I know it can be argued with some force that for the first five years the Government, by their supplementary grant, will maintain the rate as it is now, but I want to follow up the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams).
In almost all our coal areas in South Wales at the present time, you have a number of collieries which are closed down and are not producing any rateable value at all, and that fact will be taken into consideration in the basic year 1928–29. We are hoping that a number of those collieries will come into production, say, in the year 1930–31. Instead of these districts getting the full advantage of the loss of rateable value by these collieries coming back into production in 1930–31, they will only have the advantage of something like 25 per cent. of the rateable value, and full expenditure in those areas. That is the point about which urban districts, especially in the mining areas, are very concerned. There is another factor too which should be taken into account by the Government. The Rating and Revaluation Act comes into operation on the 1st April of this year, and in almost every district the rateable value of cottages and business premises will be increased by 10 or 15 per cent., and up to 20 per cent. in some instances.
We have, in some of the South Wales districts, very large compounding allowances
given both from the general district rate and from the poor rate. In the district of Mountain Ash there is a compounding allowance from the general district rate of 50 per cent. and from the poor rate of 30 per cent. There again, as a result of the Rating and Revaluation Act coming into operation, these compounding allowances are being reduced to 15 per cent. Almost all the ratepayers in that district were of the opinion that with the increased rateable value of cottage and business premises the reduction in compounding allowances must have meant a considerable reduction in the rates in the £, but instead of that, the rates will be stabilised at something like 23s. in the £, not only for the first year or the first five years, but, with this terrible loss of rateable value brought about by these de-rating proposals, it is going to mean, really, a rate of 28s. in the £ in perpetuity.
I would ask that in such cases as those of the urban district councils of Mountain Ash, Aberdare, and other districts in South Wales, they should be met out of special consideration. The President of the Board of Education referred to the fact that in the case of some Part III authorities a case could be made out in the course of two or three years for special consideration. May I ask that the same should be done with regard to these urban district councils which are losing a very large amount of their rateable value because of these de-rating proposals. One can safely say that where there is a loss of more than 25 or 30 per cent. of the rateable value as a result of these de-rating proposals, in every ease these urban district councils are going to lose a considerable amount, and I ask that this ease may be taken into consideration for special circumstances by the Government.

Mr. POTTS: I hope the Minister will not press his point, but accept the Amendment. It seems to me rather singular that I am going to oppose the Minister, having regard to the fact that the county borough which I have the honour to represent will gain out of this business. We happen to be one of the few. So far as my county borough is concerned, taking the formula, the estimated loss of grant and rates, expressed in pence per head of actual population, is 148d. The total grant in pence per head of actual population when worked out is 219d., or, in
other words, we shall gain 71d. That is an enormous gain for the borough, but let us look at another point. I always try to have regard to other people as well as myself. Taking the whole area of the Poor Law union as it is now situated, ending last March, a 1d. rate produced £1,993. In the borough when separated from the remainder of the union it produces £975, against £1,018 outside. Next March, ending March, 1929, the total will be £2,095. In Barnsley Borough it is estimated that it will be £1,035, and the rest outside will raise £1,060. Barnsley, when this Bill comes into operation, will be cut off the outside, and in borrowing money for relief purposes, while two-thirds go outside so far as recipients are concerned, when it comes to repayment Barnsley Borough itself has to pay just inside 50 per cent. of the money back again.
One of the main points with which I want to deal is a statement made by the Minister in connection with de-rating. On 26th November last, the Minister of Health said that this Bill is not only
by increasing employment going to increase the earnings of the workers, but it is bound also to have the most profound effect upon the fortunes of all ratepayers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1928; col. 88, Vol. 223.]
Let me endeavour to show what the Minister is going to pay in respect to the rates, having regard to the present and possible future position, because for years I can see no prospect of the coal trade altering its present position materially. I have been looking into the figures. The Minister, in reply to an hon. Member, said that he could not deal with an individual case of a colliery; he wanted to deal with the thing generally. I want to deal with the whole county of York, and to show what money the Minister actually sends into the county in the relief of the collieries. I will take last year up to the end of November; and, basing the calculation on those figures, I find that what will be paid in actual rates for each calendar month is £62,194 12s. The rates which the Minister will pay under his formula, if things remain constant, in respect to the whole of the collieries of Yorkshire, is £46,645 per calendar month.
When that reaches the collieries it will not go towards alleviating the industry at all; neither the workmen nor the industry will profit at all, because during the year the collieries were £6,000,000
to the bad. When the employer receives that amount of money in rate relief, therefore, it will go straight into his pockets. All that this relief does is to reduce the losses in the mining industry in Yorkshire at the rate of £46,645 per calendar month. It will not help the industry at all. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will begin to see that this Bill will in no way assist the industry. It seems that it has been designed to assist the employers, and nobody else. These figures prove it. I hope the Minister will look into this matter, and, if he is a wise man, he will withdraw the whole Bill.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I support this Amendment, because the plain effect of it, notwithstanding the observations of the Parliamentary Secretary, is to guarantee the urban and rural district authorities against the loss of the operation of this scheme. It is more necessary now than at any stage in the discussion of this Bill that we should have a plain assertion of principle along these lines. The Debate has made it very clear that there are so many conditions attached to the operation of the financial Clauses of this Bill, that the local authorities are in danger of definite losses. The fact that the calculations are based on the standard year is a matter which places the local authorities in definite jeopardy under the scheme. I appreciate that under the Amendment which has been put forward by the Government each local authority will be guaranteed against an increase of rate poundage, not for one year, as was originally proposed, but for five years based on the calculation of the standard year. The effect of our Amendment is to go much beyond that. It is to establish the points of view that have been brought forward by the Urban District Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association that they should have a guarantee against loss, not for one year or for five years, but during the permanent operation of this Measure.
Let me give the grounds for the anxiety which the urban district authorities entertain, and I will quote the position of five of the authorities in my own constituency as being illustrative. In the case of the urban district council of Clayton West, the standard year
poundage is 13s. 4d., and the estimated poundage under this scheme before the payment of the supplementary Exchequer grant is 14s. 2d.; that is to say, Clayton West starts with the situation loaded against it to the extent of 10d. in the £. Take Ingbirchworth District Council: the poundage under the standard year is 9s. 9d., and the estimated poundage before the payment of the supplementary Exchequer grant is 10s. 10d., which is 1s. 1d. to the bad. In the case of Penistone, the town which gives the name to my constituency, the standard year poundage is 10s. 3d., but under the scheme, before the payment of the supplementary Exchequer grant, the rates will rise to 12s. 10d., so that the scheme is loaded against it to the extent of 2s. 7d. in the £. Shepley has a standard year rate of 10s. and its position under the estimate is 12s. 4d., a loss of 2s. 4d. in the £. Then the urban district of Thurlstone has a poundage under the standard year of 11s. 3d. and an estimated poundage before the payment of the supplementary Exchequer grant under this scheme of 12s. 8d., which is again a setback to the extent of 1s. 5d. in the £.
I know the Parliamentary Secretary says that in all these cases, under the Amendment which the Government have proposed, they will be guaranteed for five years against loss, but what we are asking—and I think that it is not an unreasonable request—is a guarantee after the expiry of the five years. We are asking for a guarantee with regard to the permanent operation of this Measure. The reasonable expectation of all the local authorities, when this great local government reform Measure was proposed, was that every one of them would get on balance a definite advantage from the central Exchequer fund. I assume we are proceeding with this reform from the point of view that the local authorities have a well-established claim for a redistribution of payments as between the National Exchequer and the local rates. Therefore it is not unreasonable to put forward the view that each one of the authorities should not only be guaranteed against loss "within the scheme"—which appears to be the perilous snag in this whole matter—but should have a permanent guarantee that they are not going to be involved in any losses.
Let me remind the Parliamentary Secretary of the situation of some of these urban districts with regard to future rating. I will quote the case of Stocks-bridge, which is representative. The rateable value of Stocks-bridge is, roughly, £51,000. The land and agricultural buildings which will come within this scheme of de-rating amount to a little over £2,000, and the productive undertakings—so far as the figure has been worked out—amount to well over £19,000. Out of a rateable value of £51,000 more than £20,000 comes within the scope of de-rating. That is representative of at least three of the urban districts in my own constituency. One-third of the rateable value is reduced or cancelled altogether under the Bill, and in those circumstances, and having regard to the developments which can take place outside the scheme, and having regard to the fact that the whole scheme is based on the standard year, 1926–27, I submit that the urban and rural district councils are entitled to ask in principle that they should be guaranteed against any losses over the permanent operation of this Bill.
I should have thought that was an extraordinary modest position to take up in view of all the claims the Government have made for this Bill, and I should have thought the Parliamentary Secretary would be in quite a hurry to accept that position. All the possibilities of evil falling upon the local authorities would be definitely ruled out if that simple assertion could be made. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that earlier in the evening I tried to get him to give a plain answer to a plain question, but, in his delightful way, he preferred to go his own course. The plain and simple assertion which I have indicated to him would gratify every Conservative in every urban or rural district in the country, and I once again invite the Parliamentary Secretary to turn aside from the devious ways of poetry and mysticism and make a plain, scientific statement on an issue which is of the greatest possible importance to the local authorities.

Mr. E. BROWN: I do not think the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary meets the point or shows that the Government have really given sufficient attention to the effect of the loss of rates in
various areas through the diminished yield of a penny rate. It is perfectly true, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, that there are two clear gains. Where a county as a whole gains by the application of the formula, the districts inside that particular county are likely to gain. That, however, is not true in the counties where the formula works badly; that is to say, when the scheme comes into operation on its full basis, and after all, what we have to consider is not merely the period of five years for which these districts are guaranteed, but we must have regard to the actual basis of the scheme It is also true that the case of the county district is not quite on all fours with that of the county and county borough, because of the transfer of the Poor Law and other services from the smaller districts to larger areas in some cases. It is not true, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested in his answer, that there is a difference between all rural and all urban areas in the services they provide. There are rural districts providing a more varied set of services than are to be found in some urban districts. That I may have authority for my statement I will quote from the Rural District Councils Association. They say:
It is, of course, true that some urban authorities may provide more services than rural districts, hut there are very many rural districts which provide just as many services as urban authorities, so that this justification for the differentiation in grants between urban and rural districts again affords ground for objecting to the scheme, of distribution.
That, of course, is true; and it is also true that there is a great variation in rating in urban and rural districts. Some urban districts in the same county have a great variation of rates, and if the yield is badly affected by de-rating the consequences are very important to the smaller districts. I will take a few figures from the White Paper. Take the county of Chester. In Alsager the rate is 14s. 4d., and in Compstall is 8s. 4d.—that is for this year 1927–28 and not 1926–27. In Cornwall we find Camborne 20s., and Padstow 11s. 8d. In Lancashire, Ashton in Makerfield, 18s., and Kirkham, 9s. Therefore, it is no wonder that those of us who take an interest in the smaller local authorities should begin to feel gravely perturbed, because while the Government have transferred various services and want a wider area of charge,
they have preferred to take the population as the sole test for the final distribution.
This is the point on which I wish to say my final word. I do not believe this arrangement will work out well, and in areas where the county as a whole is, under the formula, guaranteed against loss, certain county districts inside that county will find themselves losing very heavily. The guarantee is against loss for five years, but, after all, the position seems to be summed up in the words of the old song "Clementine," which was so popular among the troops:
Now she's lost and gone for ever.
That is true with regard to the rates. If rates are taken away from a particular rural district or urban district, they are lost and gone for ever. The scheme of the Government may or may not work out well. I may be wrong in my contention, or they may be wrong in their contention, but one thing cannot be denied, that when de-rating operates and you have applied it to the agricultural land and the various industries in any district, so much of the power of rating is gone for ever. It is because the effect of this appears so markedly in the diminution of the yield of a penny rate that I wish the Minister had seen his way to meet the ease put up for making the scheme one in which the Treasury would make up to each local authority the actual amount of rates lost by de-rating, and then apply his scheme of grants, or a larger scheme of grants, according to this or any other formula.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I want to add ray word to what has fallen from this side of the House by way of protest against this particular formula being applied in the way which is now proposed. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out quite rightly that one of the benefits of the grant fixed upon the basis of population is that the coming of a new factory to any particular area will bring about an increase in the population, and that, ipso facto, there will be an increased grant in respect of that increased population. That is perfectly true, but there is another aspect of the question which has to be kept in mind in relation to that point, and it is that when a new factory comes to an area it
brings with it added burdens in respect of certain public services. The new population brought to such a district requires to be housed and now sewers and roads have to be constructed. There are certain burdens imposed upon areas by the coming of a new population, and I think that ought to be kept in view as a counterpoise to the point which has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary.
The point I wish to make is that it is perfectly true that a grant based upon population is attended by somewhat fantastic results. Unfortunately it has those fantastic results in these very areas which I understand it is the object of the new scheme to assist. Take the county of Glamorgan about which we have heard so much. In that county there are 17 urban district councils. In all those 17 areas there were in 1926–27 only two where the rates were below 20s. in the £. Under this scheme of those 17 urban district councils only five will be brought down below the 20s. in the £ level, and the variation in the rates before the scheme is applied would be between 31s. 10d. in the highest and 15s. 4d. in the lowest. If this scheme had been applied in 1926–27 the variation would have been between 15s. 4d. and 28s.
9.0 p.m.
The point I am making is that this happens in one of the areas which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Health claimed were going to be substantially helped by the scheme. When the Chancellor outlined his scheme he said that no one would think of going to an area like the one I have mentioned to found a new business because the rates are so heavy that no one would dream of such a project. I understand that when this scheme comes into operation there will be a great change, but I do not think that would be the effect of these proposals. So far from substantially stimulating the return of industry to those areas, I submit that this new scheme will have very little effect in that direction. I admit that there will be an advantage in some areas, but it will not be enough to transform those areas from de pressed areas into areas where we can hop? to see the coming of new industries. That is my main objection to this Measure. May I put another point. Let me deal with one area in my own
constituency. Often there are variations in urban districts in character, just as there are variations in character between county and county. One urban district may be a very compact and closely knit geographically. Its population may be very dense and the geographical area may be very small. The neighbouring area may be very much larger and the social services may be much less concentrated in that section. In the first case the density of population is greater and consequently they get a greater advantage than the second case. I think that is a valid objection to the population basis of grant under the scheme.
May I again point out the result of this scheme in urban districts which were intended to receive the greatest assistance under this scheme. Among the urban district councils to which I have referred is one which I represent in this House, and it happened, in the last half-year, to be the heaviest rated urban district area in the whole country. Its rates were 18s. 1d. in the £ for the half-year, that is 32s. 2d. in the £ for the full year. Will it be believed that the percentage of benefits given to this heaviest rated area is a good deal less than the percentage of benefit given to any one of the neighbouring urban district areas. That is one of the very fantastic results of the Government's scheme.
Let me take the comparison further. Take the case of Aberdare. That urban district council in 1926–27 had a rate of 24s. 2d. in the £, and if this scheme had been in operation then it would have got a benefit of 6.9 per cent. In Gellygaer the rates were 26s. 1d. in the £ and if this new scheme had been in operation it would have had 1.6 per cent. benefit. Since then in this very area, not merely on account of the closing of collieries but because of events

which happened during the War and since the War, its rates have gone up by 10s. in the £, and the scheme of the Government will actually prevent this area from getting assistance to meet that increased poundage in its rates. The point that I want to make is that the result of the scheme inevitably becomes fantastic when the grant is calculated upon the population basis.

I should like to say one other word on a point which has been referred to already, and which must be emphasised and re-emphasised in this House, namely, the taking of the year 1928–29 as the standard year. That, really, is a most important matter, especially in regard to the mining areas. The Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do that the year 1928–29, which has been chosen by the Government as the standard year, is the most unfavourable year that they could take as regards mining areas. The contribution to local rates by collieries is based upon the output of coal, and the year 1928–29 is from that point of view the most unfavourable year for us that could possibly be taken. It means that, in the case of these urban districts, which are going to be limited to a fixed grant per head of population, their resources are going to be very materially limited thereby, and I should like, if I can, to induce the right hon. Gentleman to consider in what way it would be possible to give some extra advantage to those areas, in addition to the benefit that may accrue from the population grant.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'quinquennium' in line 14, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 106.

Division No. 119.]
AYES.
[9.8 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Boothby, R. J. G.
Christie, J. A.


Albery, Irving James
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Briggs, J. Harold
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Briscoe, Richard George
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Atkinson, C.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Buckingham, Sir H,
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bullock, Captain M.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Burman, J. B.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Bennett, A. J.
Campbell, E T.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Berry, Sir George
Cassels, J. D.
Davison, Sir W H. (Kensington, S.)


Bethel, A.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W, R. Skipton)
Chapman, Sir S.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Ellis, R. G.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Roberts Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Ropner, Major L.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lamb, J. Q.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Everard, w. Lindsay
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Faile, Sir Bertram G.
Loder, J. de V.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Lougher, Lewis
Sandon, Lord


Forestler-walker, Sir L.
Lucas- Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mol. (Renfrew, W.)


Forrest, W.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E
Lumley, L. R.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Ganzoni, Sir John
McLean, Major A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Gates, Percy
Macquisten, F. A.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Stanley. Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Gower, Sir Robert
Makins, Brigadier-General E
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Grant, Sir J. A.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Storry-Deans, R.


Greene, w. P. Crawford
Meller, R. J.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hacking, Douglas H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hamilton, Sir George
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hartington, Marquess of
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tinne, J. A.


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Henderson, Lieut. Col. Sir Vivian
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Oman. Sir Charles William C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Cot. K. P.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Waddington, R.


Hills, Major John Waller
Penny, Frederick George
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Hilton, Cecil
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pilcher, G.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Radford, E. A,
Winby, Colonel L P.


Horilck, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Howard-Bury, Colonel C, K.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Womersley, W. J.


Hurst, Gerald B.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)



Iveagh, Countess of
Remer, J. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


James, Lieut-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Major Sir William Cope and Captain




Margesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff Cannock)
Hardle, George D
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R.,Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayes, John Henry
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sexton, James


Bellamy, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Shinwell, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromley, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen. Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Gtorge
Strauss, E. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawrence, Susan
Sullivan, J.


Connolly, M.
Lindley, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Longbottom, A. W.
Taylor, R. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Him, Plaistow)


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Gardner, J. P.
MacNeill-Welr, L.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Gibbins, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Viant, S. P.


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Potts. John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York. W. R, Normanton)
Purcell, A. A.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.

Consequential Amendment made.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Miss LAWRENCE: We have been furnished with eight reasons, occupying rather more than a page of paper, to explain why the figures the Minister has provided us with are not altogether satisfactory. It is pointed out, in the first place, that everything is thrown into confusion by the fact that the Eating and Valuation Act will be in force and the figures given us for the standard year are based on the circumstances prior to that year. They are based on a valuation in process of being superseded under the Hating and Valuation Act, 1925, and the Apportionment Act, 1928, so that there is a very considerable amount of doubt cast upon the accuracy of these figures for that reason only. The figures, which are the best available, are not dependable nor watertight, but they show districts relieved very largely and districts relieved not at all or very slightly, and we can trace no possible proportion in any case between the needs and the amount given.
I have for a long time marked down Monmouth as requiring some explanation. What will happen to Bedwellty when the period comes to an end? It will get a relief of 1s. 5d. in the £, its rates being now 22s. 3d. Rhymney Valley will go down from 20s. to 9s. 6½d. That is really a very curious thing when you have two districts so close together as Rhymney and Bedwellty. There are a good many other things in the Monmouth district that perplex me. There is a place beginning with an M in which occur 20 letters with only one vowel. It has a rate of 21s. and under the scheme the relief will be rather less than 1s., and there are other districts getting much more relief. These are very remarkable anomalies. It does not look as if the Minister's steam roller were smoothing out the discrepancies between one district and another. Houghton-le-Spring in Durham gets a very slight reduction, while Chester-le-Street and Bishop Auckland, whose rates are only a little higher, get them down by 4s. or 5s. Seaham Harbour, one of the highest rated districts, with the exception of Merthyr and one or two in Wales, gets hardly any remission at all. Seaham Harbour is rated at 23s. 10d., and it gets a remission
of 6d. That is an exceedingly remarkable case, and I cannot understand why, if this scheme is so excellent, places which are so cruelly rated should get so little remission while other places get a remission of 2s. or 3s. It is a very remarkable thing that in a scheme to smoothe out all inequalities a district so heavily rated as Seaham Harbour should get so little assistance.
That is why we say that this plan does appear to operate in the most haphazard why. It may be only appearance, but it certainly does appear so. The losses and gains are smoothed over, but that does not at all meet my point that the distribution out of the special grants does seem often to give to those who have and give very little indeed to those who need it. The cases of Bedwellty and Rhymney Valley and Seaham Harbour are cases which I have long wished to bring to the attention of the Minister and the House. That is our real objection to the scheme. We cannot estimate accurately what the position of affairs will be, for reasons set out. in the second White Paper. Nobody, not even the Minister, really knows how the scheme will work out. Is it any wonder that it should work out so strangely, or that a flat distribution on the ground of population should work out in. so strange a way with regard to the urban districts of the country? Their claims and their position's and needs are different, as also are the losses with regard to de-rating, which in some eases will be very large indeed and in some cases very little. Whatever their future losses or needs, they are to receive a flat rate.
The whole defence of the plan has been that it fitted the needs. In the counties and county boroughs everything was taken into account in a perfectly scientific form. Why do we depart from the formula in the case of boroughs and urban districts? What magic is there in being over the 75,000 level of population which made the formula fitting in one case, while there is to be a flat formula in others? What is the difference between Barking and West Ham East? Not very much. One has rather more duties, but they both have the same sort of conditions when you contrast them with similar districts. In some cases, the formula applies. In some cases we have one flat rate for all
services covered by the scheme and no attempt whatever to suit the needs of ail parts.
There is no attempt whatever to estimate the poverty of the districts as measured by the number of children or loss of rating. We have only these cast-iron uniform doctrines. It really looks as if the Minister was in despair when he came to the smaller allocations and has taken no trouble at all but has given them a flat rate and told them to take it and make the best of it. I suppose their position has been the most formidable of all. They have had the full force of the blow which has fallen on their heads. Perhaps the full force has not fallen even now. So much is this the case that of all the parts of the scheme I think the taking away of the powers and the finance of the smaller towns is the one which leads to the most difficulties. It needs a great deal more explanation than we have had. The Committee should have explained to it in greater detail than before why it is that this scheme provides such strange inequalities between one urban district and another and why it is that a formula intended to fit the needs of all is a thing to be departed from quite light-heartedly when once you cross certain boundaries of population.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I wish to support the view of the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) and, if possible, to add some illustrations to show the injustice of this proposal. It is a puzzle to me why the Minister is departing from what he claims to be a very sound principle for the allocation of the whole of the national resources in the case of counties and county boroughs when he comes to smaller areas. If the principle is right as between county and county and if there should be some measure of equalisation between, say, counties in Wales and counties in the North of England, why should there not be the same principle of equality as between the urban districts within the same county? I am sure the Minister will find it very difficult to explain why he has departed from it and is allowing such striking discrepancies to be maintained. In the County of Glamorganshire there are places where the formula of 150 pence per head of the population will
leave an immense excess and advantage in some areas, but in neighbouring areas there will be a formidable deficiency when the same principle is applied. I do not think the Minister has paid as much regard as he should to the possibility of applying his formula to the smaller areas.
I do not know whether he has considered the possibility of more or less permanent unemployment in the urban areas within industrial counties, such as Durham, Monmouthshire and Glamorgan. We in Glamorgan do not see the end of unemployment, and, indeed, there is the possibility that we are not at the bottom of the depression yet. If the factor of unemployment is neglected and relief is to be given on the population basis, there will be no assistance given to us. The Minister must know that the loss of employment means loss of rates. Every man unemployed in the mining industry means a loss of rates of approximately 6d. per day. That means 3s. loss for every week's unemployment for every man employed in the mining industry, because the rates per ton of coal work out at approximately 6d., and the output of coal is about one ton for one day's work. In that coalfield there are altogether 100,000 men who are unemployed, and that means 100,000 sixpences less every day. When one takes into consideration the net loss of rates through unemployment, and the additional burden cast upon the rates owing to unemployment, one can see the absolute necessity for introducing a special weighting factor in order to do justice to those areas where unemployment is so extensive. The payment of 150d. per head of the population where 50 per cent. of the population is unemployed does not compare favourably with the payment of 130d. per head in a district where all the people are employed, and the ordinary income of the people is being maintained at its normal standard.
I have figures to show the striking discrepancy between area and area in the South Wales coalfield. In Barry, according to the formula in urban districts, the estimated loss to the district in rates and grants will work out at a rate of 236d. per head of the population. The grant to be made under the formula is 150d., and, therefore, Barry will lose 86d. per head of the population. In the case of
Mountain Ash the loss will be 236d., and there will be the same deficit of 86d. per head of the population on the application of this formula. I understand that the Minister's guarantee goes some way towards removing the deficiency, but the proposals in those two places work out very unfairly compared with places like Porthcawl and Port Talbot, where the loss is only 11d. per head of the population, and the surplus under the operation of the formula will be 139d. per head of the population. Porthcawl is without any industrial activity. It is a seaside resort whither people go after they have finished their life's work to live in retirement on pensions or on more or less comfortable incomes. These places will get under this formula 139d. more than they lose by de-rating, whereas places like Mountain Ash and Barry are going to lose 86d. per head of the population.
The same thing will apply in rural districts where very extraordinary anomalies will be created. There is one authority which will lose only 3d. per head through de-rating, but will have a surplus of 27d. per head to expend in any way it wishes, while another area which will lose 35d. through de-rating, will only have that loss made up to the extent of the 30d. laid down under the formula. These anomalies will continue for all time. There is nothing in the Clause which will remove them, and give each district an equal opportunity of meeting its liabilities, and the same chances of carrying on ordinary local government. There is nothing in this proposal to help these districts which will continue to be necessitous areas for some time to come, and which are already overwhelmed by the burden of their liabilities. This formula will give them no direct relief, but will perpetuate the burdens; and the anomalies which have brought about their poverty.
I would urge the Minister to meet these objections even at this stage of the Bill. I think the Bill can yet be made a workable Measure, and that the greater portion of the complaints of the local authorities can be met. I think that it is possible to devise a formula, especially with regard to the question of unemployment, which would make the Bill a workable Measure. As it is, it will give rise to fresh anomalies and inequalities between district and district, and. will cause growing resentment in those districts. It will be a constant source of grievance and
complaint. The Minister in forcing this Bill Clause by Clause through this House will not dispose of this problem. The greater his success in retaining this Bill in an unaltered state, the more will his difficulties become when it becomes an Act.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: One did not expect the right hon. Gentleman, nor indeed would it be possible, to draft any formula which would apply to each locality fairly and equitably. But so many curious results will accrue as a result of the application of this scheme, according to the figures contained in Command Paper 3227, that there is ample justification for asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot even at this late hour, re-examine the formula as it may or will apply to the various local authorities with a view to remedying many of the apparent injustices that will follow its full application. On several occasions I have referred particularly to the West Riding of Yorkshire, and may I recall to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that of the rural councils in that area, something like 11 of them will, according to the figures in this Memorandum, be faced with an increased rate when the full formula is applied? It may be argued, as it has been argued on previous occasions, that, as long as authorities are not likely to encounter a great increase in one, two, three or even five years, and that as Parliament would on some future occasion be able to re-examine the whole scheme in the light of the experience gained. there is little or no need for local authorities to feel alarmed. That may be all very well, but in view of the fact that the West Riding of Yorkshire, which is peculiarly industrial, shows such extraordinary results—no fewer than 85 urban district councils, according to the Minister's figures, will find themselves, when the formula was fully applied with a rate increase on existing expenditure—all the supposed guarantees and the possibility of a Parliamentary re-examination of the whole business means little or nothing to those local authorities.
We are entitled to point out to the right hon. Gentleman, since these curious results do accrue, that it is worth his while to reconsider the position if he desires to carry local authorities with him. In this connection, I think, the right hon. Gentleman cannot say that he has yet secured the good will and
approval of the Rural District Councils' Association. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he has or has not, when he replies. Of all the authorities or associations of authorities who have not yet approved of the scheme, I think the rural district councils are the ones. It may be that there are real explanations of that. Certainly they are the last section of the community ready to enter into any change of this kind willingly. No rural authority which can visualise an increase in its rates will approve of any scheme propounded by this Ministry or any other Ministry. Apart from the West Riding of Yorkshire, there are a number of results, according to the White Paper issued by the Government, which show a tendency to an increase in rates here or a decrease there. Probably the Minister will tell us why these extraordinary results occur, not only in one district or one county but almost in every county in the country.
Take the county of Cumberland, where in Wigton the rates would be reduced from 10s. 8d. to 9s. 8d., while in the Penrith Rural Council's area they would be increased from 8s. 11d. to 11s. 11d. In the County of Durham, we find that the rates of the Borough of Durham would be decreased, approximately, by 3s. 1d., while in the rural area of Darlington the rates would increase by 5s. 6d. One wonders what the people of the rural area of Darlington think about this. In the County of Essex, the rates in the Tilbury Urban District Council area would be increased from 15s. 8d. to 18s. 3d., while in Woodford they would be reduced from 19s. 4d. to 12s. 10d. One could quote from Staffordshire, Lancashire and other counties, but I have quoted sufficient to indicate that extraordinary results will accrue in every county and in every part of a county. There are sound reasons why the Minister might very well reexamine the part of the formula as applied to rural district councils where developments are taking place very rapidly.
It is ostensibly the intention of the Minister of Health to help industrial undertakings and to assist industrial districts wherever he can, but unless we are very wary we shall find that in certain industrial areas developments will be retarded, if not stifled, in their normal development, because of the unfair incidence of this Clause. I suggest, with all
these variations and these very curious results—of course, I do not expect the present Minister of Health or any other Minister of Health to produce a perfect scheme—that it is possible to decrease the anomalies and apparent injustices in course of time, unless they are remedied now. The Minister might very well reconsider what can be done, in the light of known facts, before this Bill reaches its final stage. I would, therefore, urge upon the right hon. Gentleman not to look upon the opposition to this part or many other parts of the Bill as purely fractious, but to regard it as helpful opposition which might help him to make what he has described as a corner-stone in our local government life, which will go down to history as one of the big things that has been accomplished during this century. It might be made a real corner-stone in local government life if the Minister will agree to make it so. While he has done his best, he must realise that this is far away from being a perfect scheme and that there are chances still of very great improvements being made in the Bill.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Some hon. Members opposite have not even yet really applied their minds in trying to understand what the scheme proposes to do. Time after time, hon. Members opposite set up a theoretical suggestion as to the aim of the scheme and then proceed to demolish it, whilst the real fact is that what they have represented as the object of the scheme is not the object. The hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) says that the object of the scheme is to roll out all the inequalities in rating in the country. No hon. or right hon. Member on this side has ever said that.

Miss LAWRENCE: I said that one of the objects of the scheme was to reduce the inequalities.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should not have taken exception to that, if that had been the hon. Member's statement. Our object is to reduce inequalities, but the hon. Member said that the object was to roll out the inequalities. and she found fault with it because the inequalities were not entirely rolled out. That is an unreasonable proposition. There is the widest variation in rates, and there must be wide variations so
long as we have a system which leaves to each area a large measure of freedom in the services which it has to perform, and how it shall perform them. We cannot for a moment pretend, and we do not pretend, to undertake that the rates in each different rating area shall be the same. What we do say is that we are trying, and we believe we are succeeding, to deal with the distribution of the Exchequer grants in such a way that they will be much better disbursed amongst the different areas, more particularly the necessitous areas, than in the past.
We have heard the criticism made repeatedly about this Bill that there is a distinction in the method by which we treat county districts as against county boroughs and counties. The hon. Member for East Ham North asks why do we depart from the formula which we think is applicable to counties and county boroughs when we come to county districts. She says that the needs of the population are the same whether in an urban district, in a non-county borough. in a county borough or in a county. I did not expect that kind of remark from an hon. Member who has so much knowledge of the subject as the hon. Member for East Ham North. It is not a question of whether the needs are the same or different. The question is, are those needs met. The hon. Member must know perfectly well, if she gives a moment's thought to the subject, that the county boroughs are now to be responsible for the charge of their own poor, and that in a county district that is not so because it has become a county charge. Therefore, a formula which takes account not only of population but of unemployment, of rateable value, children, and the rest of it, is not applicable in cases where the charges for Poor Law and highways are no longer borne by line district but are carried either by the county or the county borough. That is why we have to apply a different formula in the ease of the county districts than we do in the case of the counties and the county boroughs. I should have thought that that was sufficiently obvious, even to a person who does not possess all the knowledge which the hon. Member for East Ham North claims to have.
There are hon. Members who say that there are very much larger rates in some county districts than in others. Of course, there are. The conditions are different, and you cannot roll out those differences, and make every district exactly like another district. Hon. Members do not always bear in mind, when considering the cases of county districts, that here we are dealing with a definite sum of money which has to be distributed amongst these county districts, and if we are to give an additional sum to certain districts we shall have to take something away from other districts in the county. The moment you try to do that, you will find that you are raising much more anomalous and indefensible differences than are to be found in the formula. That is exactly what happened when I was discussing this matter with some of the associations of local authorities. They began much in the same sort of way as some hon. Members have begun. They said: "This formula still leaves anomalies," and they suggested that it might be improved. They tried their hands at improving it, but they found that that was not possible. At any rate, they could not hit upon any formula which was better than the one which we have devised. Hon. Members opposite, although they may criticise the result? of the formula. would, I think, find it very difficult to draw up a better one or one less open to criticism. You may find here and there an area where the loss upon rates is very heavy, and where the gain is not great, but there are other areas—and I notice the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) did not mention it—like Aberavon where the gain is very great.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I did not mention it because it is a non-county borough, and we were dealing with urban districts.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know why we should not discuss the case of non-county boroughs; is Aberavon to be denied its benefit because it happens to be a non county borough? I find that Aberavon with a poundage in rates in 1916–27 or 27s. in the £ is at 21s. 6d., a very great gain and advantage to that particular borough. If you are going to give more money to other districts in that area you will have to take it away
from Aberavon, and I imagine that they would have something to say about that. That is the kind of difficulty with which hon. Members are confronted the moment they propose to introduce a different solution. There is another point which I desire to point out to the Committee because it is very often left out of account altogether by some hon. Members opposite. They say that some of these county districts are not going to be any better off than they were before because they are going to lose so much by de-rating, a local authority is going to lose so much by de-rating, the general ratepayer is going to lose so much by de-rating. Surely they have forgotten that industry is going to gain, which will make up for the loss of local authorities. Some county districts will lose by de-rating, but some of them will gain by our scheme because the benefits of de-rating will bring industry to these areas.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I was dealing with unemployment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The two are very closely connected. If you are going to take the burdens off the back of industry you are going to diminish unemployment. The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that the rates in Aberavon would be reduced from 31s. 10d. to 28s.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: What I said was that in 1926–27 the variation in rates before the application of the scheme was 31s. 10d. and 15s. 4d. in the £, and after the application of the scheme the variation would be from 28s. to 15s. 4d.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that affects the argument. As I understood him his argument was that the range by which the rates would come down was so small that there would be no inducement for industry to come to that district. Take a place like Aberavon where the rates are 31s. 10d. Under the scheme they will come down to 24s. 9d., but the manufacturer is only going to pay one-quarter of that, and his rates therefore will be 6s. 2d. What you have to compare when considering the prospects of industry is 31s. 10d. and 6s. 2d. That is going to make a great alteration in the outlook of the manufacturer who has to consider whether or not he is going to set up an industry in that particular area. That is a point which I
think hon. Members have left out of account altogether when considering whether this scheme is going to assist necessitous areas or not. In some of these distressed areas the rates are high throughout the county. You cannot expect that we can make any very great difference in the rates in that county, and what we rely upon chiefly in an area of that kind is that the relief we are going to give to industry through the rates is going to diminish unemployment and in time must bring down the rates. That must be considered quite independent of the relief to the general ratepayer given by the scheme.
There is another point which I desire to put before the Committee. It is not quite easy to grasp and I do not think hon. Members have quite assimilated it yet. It is this: When you have a direct grant, as you have in the scheme, to a county district which is based on population alone, it is a grant which automatically distinguishes between a poor area and a rich area. If you express that grant in the form of a rate in the £ it must, of course, be at a higher rate where the rateable value is low than when the rateable value is high, and seeing that each of these county districts has to provide not merely the expenditure in the district which is chargeable to local rates, but also has to bear the county rate, and that that county rate is a rate in the £ equal for all districts, the fact that you get a flat rate according to population means that the poorer area gets a greater contribution towards the cost of the flat county rate in the £ than the richer area. Although at first sight this formula of population appears to make no distinction between one area and another in actual working it does, and the poorer area gains at the cost of the richer area. There is that distinction: there is, therefore, something much more subtle in the application of the formula than may appear at first sight to be the case. This is one of the points which it is not very easy to assimilate, but if hon. Members will work it out they will find this to be the case and will see that the scheme really does help the poorer areas much more than they perhaps realise.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman and those who are supporting this Bill appear to me to be pinning their
faith to what is a false hope—namely, that this proposal for de-rating will really mean the starting of new industries in certain districts where at present they will not go because the rates are so high. The right hon. Gentleman said that one result of the de-rating proposals would be that new industries would be started in certain districts. Let me point out this very innocent fact, a fact which everybody realises, that there is no industry waiting to go into any district. The depression in industry is so great that nothing that this paltry measure of relief can do will stabilise them and put them on their feet. Therefore, the whole of that argument falls to the ground. I am free to admit that it has taken me a very long time owing to lack of the necessary education, to understand the formula and I am not sure that I understand it now. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] Let me say that to understand the formula is not the height, the length, the breadth or the depth of wisdom, and the right hon. Gentleman in his speech just now said that the formula, which is supposed to be very scientific, is also very subtle and wants a lot of understanding.
I am a plain sort of person, without the sublety of the intelligence of hon. Members opposite. When we are challenged as to whether a scheme better than this could be produced, I bring the Minister back to something that can be easily understood. This scheme takes a certain sum of money and certain grants from the local authorities, and it adds to these amounts the proceeds of a tax on petrol and forms a kind of pool out of which certain payments are to be made. All the difficulties arise because very clever people have devised a formula by which they prevent the poorer districts getting back from the State the amount of money of which the State robs them. I challenge any of the subtle Gentlemen opposite to prove that every local authority will get back the full amount of the rates that it will not be able to collect because of the passing of this Bill. If what I have said were not correct, the Minister would not have told us last night that if the proposition were to give back to each local authority out of the Exchequer, the amount taken from it as rates—that is the amount the
authority is not allowed to collect as rates—we should knock the bottom out of the scheme.
No one has yet answered the point that the districts from which you take most under the de-rating Clauses are just those districts that can least afford the loss, because they are in the main the industrial districts, where unemployment and poverty and all the things that the Government profess to have so much at heart prevail. I do not admit the truth of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman and other subtle people opposite, that the de-rating scheme is going to make more employment. But suppose that I do admit it, and that de-rating will be of great benefit to trade and industry, I should have thought that the ordinary common-sense way of dealing with the matter would have been for the Government to have said to each local authority in whose area de-rating was to be put into operation: "For every pound of de-rating the Exchequer will pay you £l." That was done under the Agricultural Rates Act. Instead of doing it here the Government have mixed things up in this formula, and have created all the difficulties that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have done their best to make more mysterious every time they have spoken. That is because they are so subtle. Subtle people can never make anything clear to an ordinary intelligence.
The further fact is that, having muddled up the arrangement in regard to de-rating, having dealt with it in a very subtle way, they have taken the money from poor districts and from well-to-do districts, and have treated it all as one fund. They say that they want by this scheme to deal in a more efficient manner with the grants for social services, to give more money to social services, and to see that the money was much better spent. For the life of me, I cannot see why the block grant could not have been made up. We are against the block grant, but let us admit that it was necessary to have it for the social services. Why that should have been mixed up with the amount of de-rated money, passes my comprehension. That is because I have not a subtle mind.

The CHAIRMAN: This Clause does not deal with block grants or the money
given to counties or county boroughs, but merely with the apportionment, within the districts of a county, of the money apportioned to the county.

Mr. LANSBURY: Surely it is the distribution of this hotch-potch Bill that the Government has created. I merely want to point out, because the right hon. Gentleman has told us that we want a very subtle mind to understand this business, that it would have been much simpler not to have been quite so subtle, but to have done the business in a common, ordinary, garden manner, and to have paid back to people the money of which you robbed them. That is the first proposition. The next proposition is that had it been necessary to create the pool out of which this money is to be distributed to the localities, I cannot see why the Government should not have laid down certain terms and conditions on which it could have been distributed. That would have saved a great deal of difficulty. What the right hon. Gentleman has done with his very subtle brain is to mix up reform of the Poor Law with this de-rating scheme.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to be anticipating his speech on the Third Reading, This particular Clause deals only with the manner in which the grants to a county are to be distributed to the various districts within the county areas.

Mr. ERSKINE: On a point of Order. Does this Clause deal specially with subtlety?

Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Gentleman himself has a very subtle intellect, but I do not want to get out of order. I was tempted to trespass by the Minister's speech, because it was a challenge to us that we were very ignorant. Of course he did not say so directly. He told us he would try to make us understand this proposal but that it was so very subtle that we might not understand it. We are sorry to be so ignorant but I want the right hon. Gentleman to know that quite ordinary people might have produced a scheme which would not be subtle and which would not have taken hours and days to understand. Had the right hon. Gentleman been here earlier, he would have heard one of the most learned gentlemen
on his own side saying that he did not understand how this part of the Bill would work. The whole difficulty has arisen because of the frightful hotchpotch which is in this Bill. It attempts to do in one Bill a dozen different things and it does them all in exactly the wrong way. That is the subtle way.

Mr. E. BROWN: I wish to call attention to the Minister's last statement. It is the first time I have heard it said, cither in the country or here, that the application of this method as to population will send the money where it is needed. I should be very pleased to put down a series of questions asking for the figures on which the Minister supports that statement. The hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) sits for a district with a population of over 100,000. I shall be surprised to find that Ilford will gain by this proposition. I was reading the letters of Charles Kingsley the other night and I came across a quotation which should appeal to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). Writing about formulae Charles Kingsley says:
The men who only try to speak what they believe are naked men, fighting men, quilted sevenfold in formulae.
That seems to be the position to-night. We are arguing here about subtleties and formulae and directly we begin to argue about this formula the Minister has us at a disadvantage because it is his scheme and not ours. We would desire a very different way. I shall be pleased to have verification by figures of the suggestion that by the application of this very arbitrary method of actual population to the county districts you Will really send the money to the places where it is wanted. With regard to the question of rating value, I cannot believe that that point is sound. Surely there are other factors to be taken into consideration when you are going to apply this money according to actual population. If you are going to measure need in terms of population you must express it, not in terms of assessable value alone, but in terms of the rating pressure per head of the population. No calculation can be sound that does not take into account variations, first in the rates in the £, and, second, in the levels of assessable values. One of the troubles which the Parliamentary Secretary had was with
the case of Cheltenham. Whereas Cheltenham loses very little by de-rating, neither does Brighton, yet, because Brighton is a county borough getting the original distribution and not the secondary distribution, Brighton is bound to gain on any formula of any kind expressing real needs. But Cheltenham, being a non-county borough, only gets its money after the weighted population grant has been made and the percentage has been fixed, and then the multiplication has been made by actual population. If the Minister goes into the matter he will find his subtlety is a little too subtle this time. The naked men fighting the man armed sevenfold by the formula are on this side, on the right side of soundness, while he is on the wrong side of subtlety.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: The Minister began his reply by assuming that we were complaining because the weighted formula which it is proposed to apply to the counties was not going to be applied to the county districts. That is not our position at all. I think there is 100 per cent. agreement on this side that the application of this particular formula on one occasion is quite enough, and we do not want to see it spread any further, but it is quite a different thing to say that the only alternative in the field is this very rough and ready method of mere population. My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) had all the weight of the Urban District Councils Association behind her in the position which she put forward. They have had the most expert authorities behind them, and they have given it as their considered judgment, after investigations which they have made into the effects of this proposal in the case of individual urban districts, that very grave injustice will be done if an attempt is made to stereotype the grants to urban district councils in this way, without regard to other circumstances than mere population.
Further on, they say that if the principle of the working out of a formula according to need is followed for county services, it ought to be followed for urban and rural district services. The Urban District Councils Association have never asked for the rigid and automatic application of the same formula, but they put forward, as do we, the consideration that
some nearer approach to the principle of need might be discovered than the one which the Minister has incorporated in this Bill. The Minister has admitted the principle that he wants to help the poorer distracts if he can. I am quite sure that if that is his primary intention, he can implement this formula in other ways that would help him to achieve that end.
I did not rise to criticise this particular formula so much as to emphasise once again the precarious condition in which the urban district councils, and especially those of lesser populations, are going to be placed under the vague considerations of this particular Clause. I gave to the Parliamentary Secretary the representative example of my own constituency, which shows that before the supplementary grants come into existence the 14 authorities in my constituency will have the scales weighted against them to the extent of about 4s. 9d. in the £. It is true that as a result of the struggle which the urban districts and the counties have put up, we got a five years' guarantee merely within the scheme, and that as a result of the fight they put up in the Departments concerned we got a guarantee that after seven years the whole finance of this matter will be reviewed by Parliament. What we are wanting still further in the interests of the urban district councils and of the good working of this Bill is that they should be guaranteed as individual authorities that they are not going to lose at all. We are asking for the establishment of this minimum principle, and I regret that the Minister of Health, who is setting up the ideal of helping local authorities, should reject what is a very moderate proposal.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Debates today have proved the difficulty of arguing this Bill under the guillotine. On this Clause we have not been able to raise many of the questions that could be raised, and we have not been able to probe the bottom of the subleties of this Clause. I have not time to deal with the Minister's speech as I should like, but there are two points in his defence of Clause 73 to which I should like to refer. The first is his introduction of the question of de-rating and its effect on unemployment. We are told that if the rates were 26s. in the £ in some
county districts, they are to be reduced by three-quarters, and that it will be advantageous to industry. The first reply obviously is that if you reduce the rates of industrial hereditaments by a quarter, you will leave the position precisely where it was, and there will be no inducement to anybody. The situation will be relatively what it was before, because presumably the firms in the 25s. area and the firms in the 6s. area have been able to compete on fairly equal terms in the past; otherwise the firms in the 25s. area would not exist. It is no reply to the case of the local authorities to say that you are seeking to help certain selected ratepayers. The only inference from the argument of the Minister on this Clause is that with more work the ordinary householder will be able to pay higher rates. That is the logic of his argument.
I want to deal with the question of population. We are told that population measured on a flat rate basis is, in effect, a means of assisting the poorer areas relatively to the richer. If that be so, why did not the right hon. Gentleman stick to the simple principle of population for counties and county boroughs? He has gone out of his way

to modify the population basis in the counties and county boroughs, and his argument for doing that was that it was necessary to bring in additional factors in order to help the poorer districts. In the county areas outside London a special weight is given to population in respect of sparsity of population. It is introduced in the case of counties because sparsity of population is an important factor in the expenditure of local authorities. If it be so for a county, it is so for the rural districts, and that element ought to have been taken into account. The flat basis of population does not discriminate fairly between the rich and poor areas. As a matter of fact, it places- a premium on the richer areas at the expense of the poorer areas, especially in the rural districts where poverty is due to sparsity of population.

It being half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, successively to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 102.

Division No. 120.]
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cecll, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gaibraith, J. F. W.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col, Charles
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Ganzonl, Sir John.


Albery, Irving James
Chapman, sir S.
Gates, Percy


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Christle, J. A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Goff, Sir Park


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D
Gower, Sir Robert


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Colfox, Major William Phillips
Grant, Sir J. A.


Astor, Viscountess
Colman, N. C. D.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Atkinson, C.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cope, Major Sir William
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hacking, Douglas H.


Bennett, A. J.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hamilton, Sir George


Bethel, A.
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Hammersiey, S. S.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hartington, Marquess of


Bird, E. R. (Yorks. W. R., Skipton)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harvey, Major S E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Briggs, J. Harold
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hills, Major John Waller


Briscoe, Richard George
Ellis, R. G.
Hilton, Cecil


Btittain, Sir Harry
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Erskine, James Matcom Monteith
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Bullock, Captain M.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Horllck, Lieut.Colonel J. N.


Burman, J. B.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Campbell, F. T.
Fermoy, Lord
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M (Hackney, N).


Carver, Major W. H.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Herst, Gerald B.


Cassels, J. D.
Forrest, W.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francls E.
Iveagh, Countess of


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Lamb, J. O.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Steel, Major Samual Strang


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Storry-Deans, R.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Loder, J. de V.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Lougher, Lewis
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stuart, Hon J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera
Pllcher, G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Lumley, L, R,
Radford, E. A.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


MacAndrsw, Ma|or Charles Glen
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Thom. Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Tinne, J. A.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


McLean, Major A.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Macquisten, F. A.
Remer, J. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Rentoul, G. S.
Waddington, R.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hall)


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Ropner, Major L.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Margesson, Captain D
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wayland, Sir William A.


Meller, R. J.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wells, S. R.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sandon, Lord
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Mllne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl


Moore-Brabazon, Lieul.-Col. J. T. C.
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ.,Belfast)
Womersley, W. J.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)



Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Smithers, Waldron
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. F. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprlng)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardle, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Hayes, John Henry
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Bellamy, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Seurr, John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sexton, James


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Bromfield, William
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lindley, F. W.
Strauss, E. A.


Connolly, M.
Longbottom, A. W.
Sullivan, J.


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Taylor, R. A.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R.(Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dinnison, R.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Duncan, C.
MaeNeill-Weir, L.
Townend, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Viant, S. P.


Evens, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gardner, J. P.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon Josiah


Gibbins, Joseph
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wellock, Wilfred


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Greenall, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palln, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur



Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W.R. Normanton)
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. T. Henderson.

THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given and the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the clock at this day's Sitting.

CLAUSE 74.—(Compensation for losses on account of special and parish rates.)

Amendments made:

In page 59, leave out from the word "and," in line 33, to the end of line 34.

In line 37, after the word "shall," insert the words:
in respect of each year during the first four fixed grant periods.

In page 60, line 3, leave out the word "quinquennium," and insert instead

thereof the words "and second fixed grant periods."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 99.

Division No. 121.]
AYES.
[10.41 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Gaibraith, J. F. w.
Newman, Sir R. H S. D. L. (Exeter)


Albery, Irving James
Ganzonl, Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gates, Percy
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Goff, Sir Park
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid w
Gower, sir Robert
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Astor, viscountess
Grant, Sir J. A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Atkinson, C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Burnett, Major Sir Richard
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pllcher, G.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. p. H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Radford, E. A.


Bennett, A. J.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Hawson, Sir Cooper


Bethel, A.
Hamilton, Sir George
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hammerstey, S. S.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hartington, Marquess of
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remer, J. R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Rentoul, G. S.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Henage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Briggs, J. Harold
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ropner, Major L.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hills, Major John Waller
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hilton, Cecil
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandon, Lord


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew w.)


Burman, J. B.
Horlick, Lieut-Colonel J. N.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Campbell E. T.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ.,Bet'f'st.)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cassels, J. D.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cayrer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,s.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smithers, Waldron


Cecil, Rt. Hon. sir Evelyn (Aston)
Iveagh, Countess of
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Chamberlain, Rt, Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chapman, Sir S.
James, Lieut-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon.G. F.


Christle, J. A.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kinloch-Cocke, Sir Clement
Storry-Deans R.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lamb, J. Q.
Stott, Lieut.-Colorel W. H.


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Streatfelid, Captain S. R.


Colman, N. C. D.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Loder, J. de V.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cope, Major Sir William
Lougher, Lewis
Sudden, Sir Wilfrld


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Tasker, R. Inigo


Cowan Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn, N.)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harmnn
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lomley, L. R.
Thomson, F C. (Aberdeen, South)


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tinne, J. A.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Dr. Vernon
McLean, Major A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macquisten, F. A.
Waddington, R.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.( Kingston-on-Hull)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Ellis, R G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wayland, Sir William A.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Margesson, Captain D.
Wells, S. R.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Marrlott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Meller, R. J.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Monseil, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Womersley, W. J.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fermoy, Lord
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.



Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Forrest, W.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bellamy, A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Batey, Joseph
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Broad, F. A.


Bromfleld, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bromley, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Serymgeour, E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Scurr, John


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, James


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Shinwell, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lansbury, George
Sitch, Charles H.


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lindley, F. W.
Stamford, T. W.


Dennison, R.
Longbottom, A. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Strauss, E. A.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unlver.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sullivan, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sutton, J. E.


Gibbins, Joseph
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Taylor, R. A.


Gillett, George M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Tinker, John Joseph


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottonham, N.)
Tomilnson, R. P.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Townend, A. E.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.
Viant, S. P.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Oliver, George Harold
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Griffiths, T, (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Owen, Major G.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry
Wellock, Wilfred


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hardle, George D.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hayday, Arthur
Purcell, A. A.
Windsor, Walter


Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)



Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. T. Henderson.

Resolved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—Commander Eyres Monsell.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.